■NRLF 


UNIVERSITY    OF    PENNSYLVANIA 


THE    DRAMATIC    VALUES 
IN  PLAUTUS 


BY 


WILTON   WALLACE   BLANCK&,  A.M.,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  LATIN  IN  THE  CENTRAL  HIGH 
SCHOOL  OF  PHILADELPHIA 


A  THESIS 


PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  IN  PARTIAL 
FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 
DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY  » 


1918 


EXCHANGE 


PRESS  OF   W.  F.  HUMPHREY,  GENEVA,  N.  Y. 


FOREWORD 


ikJ 


This  dissertation  was  written  in  1916,  before  the  entrance 
of  the  United  States  into  The  War,  and  was  presented  to  the 
Faculty  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  as  a  thesis  for  the 
degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy.  Its  publication  at  this  time 
needs  no  apology,  for  it  will  find  its  only  public  in  the  circum- 
scribed circle  of  professional  scholars.  They  at  least  will  under- 
stand that  scholarship  knows  no  nationality.  But  in  the  fear 
that  this  may  fall  under  the  eye  of  that  larger  public,  whose 
interests  are,  properly  enough,  not  scholastic,  a  word  of  explana- 
tion may  prove  a  safeguard. 

The  Germans  have  long  been  recognized  as  the  hewers  of  wood 
and  drawers  of  water  of  the  intellectual  world.  For  the  results 
of  the  drudgery  of  minute  research  and  laborious  compilation, 
the  scholar  must  perforce  seek  German  sources.  The  copious 
citation  of  German  authorities  in  this  work  is,  then,  the  outcome 
of  that  necessity.  I  have,  however,  given  due  credit  to  German 
criticism,  when  it  is  sound.  The  French  are,  generically,  vastly 
superior  in  the  art  of  finely  balanced  critical  estimation. 

My  sincere  thanks  are  due  in  particular  to  the  Harrison  Founda- 
tion of  the  University  for  the  many  advantages  I  have  received 
therefrom,  to  Professors  John  C.  Rolfe  and  Walton  B.  McDaniel, 
who  have  been  both  teachers  and  friends  to  me,  and  to  my  good 
comrades  and  colleagues,  Francis  H.  Lee  and  Horace  T.  Boileau, 
for  their  aid  in  editing  this  essay. 

Wilton  Wallace  Blancke. 
1918. 


PART  I 

A    RESUME   OF   THE   CRITICISM    AND   OF   THE   EVIDENCE 
RELATING    TO    THE  ACTING   OF  PLAUTUS 

Introduction 

This  investigation  was  prompted  by  the  abiding  conviction 
that  Plautus  as  a  dramatic  artist  has  been  from  time  immemorial 
misunderstood.  In  his  progress  through  the  ages  he  has  been 
like  a  merry  clown  rollicking  amongst  people  with  a  hearty 
invitation  to  laughter,  and  has  been  rewarded  by  commendation 
for  his  services  to  morality  and  condemnation  for  his  buffoonery. 
The  majority  of  Plautine  critics  have  evinced  too  serious  an  atti- 
tude of  mind  in  dealing  with  a  comic  poet.  However  portentous 
and  profound  his  scholarship,  no  one  deficient  in  a  sense  of  humor 
should  venture  to  approach  a  comic  poet  in  a  spirit  of  criticism. 
For  criticism  means  appreciation. 

Furthermore,  the  various  estimates  of  our  poet's  worth  have 
been  as  diversified  as  they  have  been  in  the  main  unfair.  Alter- 
nately lauded  as  a  master  dramatic  craftsman  and  vilified  as  a 
scurrilous  purveyor  of  unsavory  humor,  he  has  been  buffeted 
from  the  top  to  the  bottom  of  the  dramatic  scale.  More  recent 
writers  have  been  approaching  a  saner  evaluation  of  his  true 
worth,  but  never,  we  believe,  has  his  real  position  in  that  dramatic 
scale  been  definitely  and  finally  fixed;  because  heretofore  no 
attempt  has  been  made  at  a  complete  analysis  of  his  dramatic, 
particularly  his  comic,  methods.  It  is  the  aim  of  the  present 
dissertation  to  accomplish  this. 

I  doubt  not  that  from  the  inception  of  our  acquaintance 
with  the  pages  of  Plautus  we  have  all  passed  through  a  similar 
experience.  In  the  beginning  we  have  been  vastly  diverted  by 
the  quips  and  cranks  and  merry  wiles  of  the  knavish  slave,  the  v 
plaints  of  love-lorn  youth,  the  impotent  rage  of  the  baffled  pander, 
the  fruitless  growlings  of  the  hungry  parasite's  belly.  We  have 
been  amused,  perhaps  astonished,  on  further  reading,  at  meeting 
our  new-found  friends  in  other  plays,  clothed  in  different  names  to  v 
be  sure  and  supplied  in  part  with  a  fresh  stock  of  jests,  but  still 
engaged  in  the  frustration  of  villainous  panders,  the  cheating  of 
harsh  fathers,  until  all  ends  with  virtue  triumphant  in  the  estab- 

5 


lishment  of  the  undoubted  respectability  of  a  hitherto  somewhat 
dubious  female  character.1 

v  Our  astonishment  waxes  as  we  observe  further  the  close  cor- 
respondence   of    dialogue,    situation    and    dramatic    machinery. 

•  We  are  bewildered  by  the  innumerable  asides  of  hidden  eaves- 
droppers, the  inevitable  recurrence  of  soliloquy  and  speech 
familiarly  directed  at  the  audience,  while  every  once  in  so  often 
a  slave,  desperately  bent  on  finding  someone  actually  under  his 
nose,  careens  wildly  cross  the  stage  or  rouses  the  echoes  by  unmerci- 
ful battering  of  doors,  meanwhile  unburdening  himself  of  lengthy 
solo  tirades  with   great   gusto;2    and   all  this  dished  up  with  a 

.  sauce  of  humor  often  too  racy  and  piquant  for  our  delicate  twen- 
tieth-century palate,  which  has  acquired  a  refined  taste  for 
suggestive  innuendo,  but  never  relishes  calling  a  spade  by  its 
own  name. 

If  we  have  sought  an  explanation  of  our  poet's  gentle  foibles 
in  the  commentaries  to  our  college  texts,  we  have  assuredly  been 
disappointed.  Even  to  the  seminarian  in  Plautus  little  satisfac- 
tion has  been  vouchsafed.  We  are  often  greeted  by  the 
enthusiastic  comments  of  German  critics,  which  run  riot  in 
elaborate  analyses  of  plot  and  character  and  inform  us  that  we 
are  reading  Meisterwerke  of  comic  drama.3  Our  perplexity  has 
perhaps  become  focused  upon  two  leading  questions;  first: 
"What  manner  of  drama  is  this  after  all?  Is  it  comedy,  farce, 
opera  bouffe  or  mere  extravaganza?"  Second:  "How  was  it 
done?  What  was  the  technique  of  acting  employed  to  represent 
in  particular  the  peculiarly  extravagant  scenes?"4 

There  is  an  interesting  contrast  between  the  published  editions 
of  Plautus  and  Bernard  Shaw.  Shaw's  plays  we  find  interlaced 
with  an  elaborate  network  of  stage  direction  that  enables  us  to 
visualize  the  movements  of  the  characters  even  to  extreme  minu- 
tiae. In  the  text  of  Plautus  we  find  nothing  but  the  dialogue, 
and  in  the  college  editions  only  such  editorially-inserted  "stage- 
business"  as  is  fairly  evident  from  the  spoken  lines.     The  answer 

'E.g.,  Casina  in  the  Cas.,  Silenium  in  the  Cis.,  Planesium  in  the  Cur., 
Adelphasium  and  Anterastylis  in  the  Poen.,  Palaestra  in  the  Rud. 

-\".  infra,  part  II,  sec.  I.  B.  i. 

3E.g.,  Lorenz's  Introd.  to  Most,  and  Pseud.     V.  infra,  part  I,  §  I. 

4We  are  not  concerned  in  this  question  with  technical  discussion  as  to  the 
position  of  the  banquet  table  on  the  stage,  the  nature  of  the  dog  of  the  Most. 
and  the  like,  but  with  the  delivery  and  movements  of  the  actors  themselves. 

6 


then  to  our  second  question:     "How  was  it  done?",  at  least  does 
not  lie  on  the  surface  of  the  text. 

For  an  adequate  answer  to  both  our  questions  the  following 
elements  are  necessary;  first:  a  digest  of  Plautine  criticism; 
second:  a  resume  of  the  evidence  as  to  original  performances 
of  the  plays,  including  a  consideration  of  the  audience,  the  actors 
and  of  the  gestures  and  stage-business  employed  by  the  latter; 
third:  a  critical  analysis  of  the  plays  themselves,  with  a  view  to 
cataloguing  Plautus'  dramatic  methods.  We  hope  by  these  means 
to  obtain  a  conclusive  reply  to  both  our  leading  questions. 

§  i.  Critics  of  Plautus 
Plautine  criticism  has  displayed  many  different  angles.  As 
in  most  things,  time  helps  resolve  the  discrepancies.  The  general 
impression  gleaned  from  a  survey  of  the  field  is  that  in  earlier 
times  over-appreciation  was  the  rule,  which  has  gradually  sim- 
mered down,  with  occasional  outpourings  of  denunciation,  to 
a  healthier  norm  of  estimation. 

Even  in  antiquity  the  wiseacres  took  our  royal  buffoon  too 

seriously.     Stylistically   he   was   translated   to   the 

Cicero  skies.     Cicero5    imputes    to    him    "iocandi    genus, 

.     elegans,   urbanum,   ingeniosum,   facetum." 

Quintilian6  quotes:     "Licet  Varro  Musas  Aelii  Stilonis  sententia 

Plautino  dicat  sermone  locuturas  fuisse,  si  latine 

Aelius  Stilo      loqui   vellent."     The   paean    is    further    swelled 

by    Gellius,    who    variously    refers    to    our    hero 

as  "homo  linguae  atque  elegantiae  in  verbis  Latinae  princeps,"7 

and   "verborum    Latinorum    elegantissimus,"8   and 

Gellius  "linguae  Latinae   decus."9     If  our  poet   is  scored 

by  Horace10  it  is  probably  due  rather  to  Horace's 

affectation  of  contempt  for  the    early  poets  than   to  his  true 

convictions;    or  we  may  ascribe  it  to  the  sophisti- 

Horace  cated    metricist's    failure    to    realize    the    existence 

of    a    "Metrica    Musa    Pedestris."     As    Duff   says 

6De  Off.  I.  29.104. 

6X.  1.99.  Cf.  Ritschl's  citations  of  Varro:  Parerga,  p.  71  ff.  Cf.  Epig. 
quoted  by  Varro  and  attributed  to  Plautus  himself,  ap.  Gel.  N.  A.,  I.  24.1-3. 
But  that  this  was  a  patent  literary  forgery  is  proved  by  Gudeman  in  TAPA. 
XXV,  p.  160. 

7N.  A.,  VI.  17.4.  8I-7.i7-  9XIX.  8.6. 

10A.  P.,  270  ff.  Cf.  Ep.  II.  1. 1 70  ff.  and  Fay,  ed.  Most.,  Intro.  §  2. 


(A  Literary  History  of  Rome,  p.  197),  "The  scansion  of  Plautus 
was  less  understood  in  Cicero's  day  than  that  of  Chaucer  was  in 
Johnson's."     (Cf.  Cic.  Or.  55.  184.) 

We  have  somewhat  of  a  reaction,  too,  against  the  earlier  chorus 

of  praise  in  the  commentary  of  Euanthius,11  who 
Euanthius    condemns  Plautus'  persistent  use  of  direct  address 

of  the  audience.  If  it  is  true,  as  Donatus12  says  later: 
"Comoediam  esse  Cicero  ait  imitationem  vitae,  speculum  consuetu- 
dinis,  imaginem  veritatis,"  we  find  it  hard  to  understand  Cicero's 
enthusiatic  praise  of  Plautus,  as  we  hope  to  show  that  he  is  very 
far  from  measuring  up  to  any  such  comic  ideal  as  that  laid  down  by 
Cicero  himself. 

But  of  course  these  ancient  critiques  have  no  appreciable  bearing 

on  our  argument  and  we  cite  them  rather  for  histori- 
Festus  cal  interest  and  retrospect.13     While  Festus14  makes 

a  painful  effort  to  explain  the  location  of  the  mythical 
"Portus  Persicus"  mentioned  in  the  Amph.,15  Brix16  in    modern 

times  shows  that  there  is  no  historical  ground  for 
Brix  the  elaborate  mythical  genealogy  in  Men.  409  ff. 

We  contend  that  "Portus  Persicus"  is  pure  fiction,  as 
our  novelists  refer  fondly  to  "Zenda"  or  "Graustark,"  while  the 
Men.  passage  is  a  patent  burlesque  of  the  tragic  style.17 

On  the  threshold  of  what  we  may  term  modern  criticism  of 

Plautus  we  find  W.  A.  Becker,  in  1837,  writing  a 
Becker  book:     "De  Comicis  Romanorum  Fabulis  Maxime 

Plautinis  Quaestiones."  Hereinafter  deploring  the 
neglect  of  Plautine  criticism  among  his  immediate  predecessors  and 
contemporaries,  he  attempts  to  prove  that  Plautus  was  a  great 
"original"  poet  and  dramatic  artist.  Surely  no  one  today  can  be 
in  sympathy  with  such  a  sentiment  as  the  following  (Becker,  p.  95) : 
"Et  Trinummum,  quae  ita  amabilibus  lepidisque  personis  optimis- 
que  exemplis  abundat,  ut  quoties  earn  lego,  non  comici  me  poetae, 
sed  philosophi  Socratici  opus  legere  mihi  videar."     I  believe  we 

nDe  Com.  III.  6,  Donatus  ed.  Wessner.  For  full  quotation,  v.  infra, 
Part  II,  Sec.  II.  A.  3,  Note  50. 

l2Excerpta  de  Com.  V.  1 . 

13For  a  complete  list,  see  Testimonia  prefixed  to  Goetz  and  Schoell's  ed.  of 
Plautus. 

14P.  217  M.  15404,  412,  823. 

16Ed.  Men.  (Leipzig,  1891),  ad  410. 

17Cf.  opening  lines  of  Eurip.  Iph.  in  Taur. 


may  safely  call  the  Trinummus  the  least  Plautine  of  Plautine 
plays,  except  the  Captivi,  and  it  is  by  no  means  so  good  a  work. 
The  Trinummus  is  crowded  with  interminable  padded  dialogue, 
tiresome  moral  preachments,  and  possesses  a  weakly  motivated 
plot;   a  veritable  "Sunday-school  play." 

But  Becker  continues:  "Sive  enim  <Plautus>  seria  agit  et 
praecepta  pleno  effundit  penu,  ad  quae  componere  vitam  opor- 
teat;  in  sententiis  quanta  gravitas,  orationis  quanta  vis,  quam 
probe  et  meditate  eum  hominum  ingenia  moresque  novisse  omnia 
testantur."  We  feel  sure  that  our  Umbrian  fun-maker  would  strut 
in  public  and  laugh  in  private,  could  he  hear  such  an  encomium  of 
his  lofty  moral  aims.  For  it  is  our  ultimate  purpose  to  prove  that 
fun-maker  Plautus  was — primarily  and  well-nigh  exclusively  a 
fun-maker. 

K.  H.  Weise,  in  "Die  Komodien  des  Plautus,  kritisch  nach 
Inhalt  und  Form  beleuchtet,  zur  Bestimmung  des 
Weise  Echten  und  Unechten  in  den  einzelnen  Dichtungen" 

(Qoiedlinburg,  1866),  follows  hard  on  Becker's  heels 
and  places  Plautus  on  a  pinnacle  of  poetic  achievement  in  which  we 
scarcely  recognize  our  apotheosized  laugh -maker.  Every  passage 
in  the  plays  that  is  not  artistically  immaculate,  that  does  not  con- 
form to  the  uttermost  canons  of  dramatic  art,  is  unequivocally 
damned  as  "unecht."  In  his  Introduction  (p.  4)  Weise  is  truly 
eloquent  in  painting  the  times  and  significance  of  our  poet.  With 
momentary  insight  he  says :  "Man  hat  an  ihm  eine  immer  frische 
und  nie  versiegende  Fundgrabe  des  achten  Volkswitzes."  But 
this  is  soon  marred  by  utterances  such  as  (p .  1 4) :  "  Fande  sich  also 
in  der  Zahl  der  Plautinischen  Komodien  eine  Partie,  die  mit  einer 
andern  in  diesen  Hinsichten  in  bedeutendem  Grade  contrastirte, 
so  konnte  man  sicher  schliessen,  dass  beide  nicht  von  demselben 
Verfasser  sein  konnten."  He  demands  from  Plautus,  as  ein 
wahrer  Poet,  "Congruenz,  und  richtige  innere  Logik  <und> 
harmonische  Construction"  (p.  12),  and  finally  declares  (p.  22): 
"Interesse,  Character,  logischer  Bau  in  der  Zusammensetzung, 
Naturlichkeit  der  Sprache  und  des  Witzes,  Rythmus  und  antikes 
Idiom  des  Ausdrucks  werden  die  Kriterien  sein  mussen,  nach  dem 
wir  iiber  die  Vortrefflichkeit  und  Plautinitat  plautinischer  Stucke 
zu  entscheiden  haben." 

On  this  basis  he  ruthlessly  carves  out  and  discards  as  "unecht" 
every  passage  that  fails  to  conform  to  his  amazing  and  extravagant 

9 


ideals,  in  the  belief  that  "der  achte  Meister  Plautus  konnte  nur 
Harmonisches,  nur  Vernunftiges,  nur  Logisches,  nur  relativ 
Richtiges  dichten"  (p.  79),  though  even  Homer  nods.  The 
Mercator  is  banned  in  toto.  To  be  sure,  Weise  somewhat  redeems 
himself  by  the  statement  (p.  29  f.) :  "Plautus  bezweckte  . 
lediglieh  nur  die  eigentliche  und  wirksamste  Belustigung  des 
Publicums."  But  how  he  reconciles  this  with  his  previously 
quoted  convictions  and  with  the  declaration  (p.  16) :  "Plautus  ist 
ein  sehr  religioser,  sehr  moralischer  Schriftsteller,"  it  is  impossible 
to  grasp,  until  we  recall  that  the  author  is  a  German. 

Such  criticism  stultifies  itself  and  needs  no  refutation ;   certainly 
not  here,  as  P.  Langen  in  his  Plautinische  Studien 
Langen  (Berliner  Studien,  1886;   pp.  90-91)  has  conclusively 

proved  that  the  inconsistent  is  a  feature  absolutely 
germane  to  Plautine  style,  and  has  collected  an  overwhelming  mass 
of  "Widerspruche,  Inkonsequenzen  und  psychologische  Unwahr- 
scheinlichkeiten"  that  would  question  the  "Plautinity"  of  every 
other  line,  were  we  to  follow  Weise's  precepts.  Langen  too  uses 
the  knife,  but  with  a  certain  judicious  restraint. 

We  insist  that  the  attempt  to  explain  away  every  inconsistency 
as  spurious  is  a  sorry  refuge. 

Langrehr  in  Miscellanea  Philologica  (Gottingen,   1876),  under 

the  caption  Plautina18  gives  vent  to  further  solemn 

Langrehr      Teutonic  carpings  at  the  plot  of  the  Epidicus  and 

argues  the  play  a  contaminatio  on  the  basis  of  the 

double  intrigue.     He  is  much  exercised  too  over  the  mysterious 

episode  of  'the  disappearing  flute-girl.' 

Langen,  who  is  in  the  main  remarkably  sane,  refutes  these  con- 
clusions neatly.19  How  Weise  and  his  confreres  argue  Plautus 
such  a  super-poet,  in  view  of  the  life  an,d  education  of  the  public  to 
whom  he  catered,  let  alone  the  evidence  of  the  plays  themselves, 
and  their  author's  status  as  mere  translator  and  adapter,  must 
remain  an  insoluble  mystery.  The  simple  truth  is  that  a  play- 
wright such  as  Plautus,  having  undertaken  to  feed  a  populace 
hungry  for  amusement,  ground  out  plays  (doubtless  for  a  living),20 
with  a  wholesome  disregard  for  niceties  of  composition,  provided 
only  he  obtained  his  sine  qua  non — the  laugh.21 

18Pp.  13-19.  V.  Langen,  Plautinische  Studien,  pp.  139-142.  Cf.  also 
comments  of  Brix  to  Menaechmi  passim.  19Op.  cit.,  p.  146. 

20Cf .  Gel.  N.  A.,'  III.  3.14  s.    21V.  infra,  Part  II,  under  'Careless  Composition'. 


In  our  citation  of  opinions  we  must  not  overlook  that  impressive 

mile-stone  in  the  history  of  criticism,  the  discredited 
Lessing  but  still  great  Lessing.     In  his  "Abhandlung  von 

dem  Leben  und  den  Werken  des  M.  Accius  Plautus" 
Lessing  deprecates  the  harsh  judgment  of  Horace  and  later 
detractors  of  our  poet  in  modern  times.  Lessing  idealizes  him  as 
the  matchless  comic  poet.  That  the  Captivi  is  "das  vortremichste 
Stuck ,  welches  jemals  auf  den  Schauplatz  gekommen  ist,"  as 
Lessing  declares  in  the  Preface  to  his  translation  of  the  play,  is  an 
utterance  that  leaves  us  gasping. 

But  Lessing's  idea  of  the  purpose  of  comedy  is  a  combination  of 
Aristotelian  and  mid- Victorian  ideals:  "die  Sitten  der  Zuschauer 
zu  bilden  und  zu  bessern,  .  .  .  wenn  sie  namlich  das  Laster 
allezeit  unglucklich  und  die  Tugend  am  Ende  glucklich  sein 
lasst."22  It  is  on  the  basis  of  this  premise  that  he  awards  the  comic 
crown  to  the  Cap.23  His  extravagant  encomium  called  forth  from 
a  contemporary  a  long  controversial  letter  which  Lessing  published 

in  the  second  edition  with  a  reply  so  feeble  that  he 
Dacier  distinctly  leaves  his  adversary  the  honors  of  the  field. 

How  much  better  the  diagnosis  of  Madame  Dacier, 
who  is  quoted  by  Lessing !  In  the  introduction  to  her  translations 
of  the  Amphitruo,  Rudens  and  Epidicus  (issued  in  1683),  she  apolo- 
gizes for  Plautus  on  the  ground  that  he  had  to  win  approval  for  his 
comedies  from  an  audience  used  to  the  ribaldry  of  the  Saturae. 

Lorenz  in  his  introductions  to  editions  of  the  Most,  and  Pseud. 
is  another  who  seems  to  be  carried  away  by  the  unrestrained 

enthusiasm  that  often  affects  scholars  oversteeped 
Lorenz  in  the  lore  of  their  author.     Faults  are  dismissed  as 

merely  "Kleine  Unwahrscheinlichkeiten"  (Introd. 
Ps.,  p.  26,  N.  25.)  "Jeder  Leser,"  says  he,  "  <wird  gewiss>  darin 
beistimmen,  dass  .  .  .  der  erste  Act  <des  Pseudolus  >  erne  so 
gelungene  Exposition  darbietet,  wie  sie  die  dramatische  Poesie  nur 
aufweisen  kann."  Such  a  statement  must  fall,  by  weight  of  exag- 
geration. In  appreciation  of  the  portrayal  of  the  name-part  he 
continues:  "Mit  welch'  uberwaltigender  Herrschaft  tritt  hier 
gleich  die  meisterhaft  geschilderte  Hauptperson  hervor!  Welche 
packende  Kraft,  welche  hinreissende  verve  Hegt  in  dem  reichen 
Dialoge,  der  wie  beseelt  von  der  feurigen  Energie  des  begabten 

22Beschluss  der  Critik  iiber  die  Gefangenen  des  Plautus. 
230p.  cit.,  fin. 

11 


Menschen,  der  ihn  lenkt,  frohlich  rauschend  dahin  eilt,  iiber- 
sprudelnd  von  einer  Fulle  erheiternder  Scherze  und  schillernder 
Spielereicn!" 

In  curious  contrast  to  this  fulsome  outpouring  stands  the 
expressed  belief  of  Lamarre24  that  the  character  of  Ballio  over- 
shad<  >ws  that  of  Pseudolus.  In  support  of  this  view  he  cites  Cicero 
{Pro  Ros.  Com.  7.20),  who  mentions  that  Roscius  chose  to  play 
Ballio. 

Lorenz  in  his  enthusiasm  exalts  the  Epid.  to  an  ideal  of  comic 
excellence  (Introd.  Ps.  p.  27).  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  contend 
that  Plautus  lives  up  to  the  following  characterization:25  "Nicht 
bios  durch  naturgetreue  and  lebhafte  Charakterschilderungen  und 
durch  eine  komisch  gehaltene,  aber  die  Grenzen  des  Wahrschein- 
lichen  und  des  Graziosen  nicht  uberschreitende  Zeichnung  des 
taglichen  Lebens  soil  der  Dichter  des  Lustspiels  seine  Zuschauer 
interessiren  und  ihr  heiteres  Gelachter  hervorrufen,  sondern  auch 
so  reiche  Anwendung  zu  geben,  durch  die  es  in  den  Dienst  einer 
sittlichen  Idee  tritt,  und  so  gleichsam  die  moralische  Atmosphare 
.     zureinigen." 

Such  emotional  superlatives  merely  create  in  the  reader  a 
cachinnatory  revulsion.  Yes,  Plautus  was  great,  but  he  was  great 
in  a  far  different  way.  He  approached  the  Rabelaisian.  It  is  doubt- 
ful if  "die  Grenzen  des  Graziosen"  lay  within  his  purview  at  all. 

The  treatment  of  Lamarre  cited  above  contains26  a  highly 
meritorious  analysis  of  the  Plautine  characters,  discussed  largely 
as  a  reflection  of  the  times  and  people,  both  of  New 
Lamarre  Comedy  and  of  Plautus,  without  imputing  to  our 
poet  too  serious  motives  of  subtle  portrayal.  But 
he  too  ascribes  to  Plautus  a  latent  moral  purpose:  "En  faisant 
rire,  il  veut  corriger"  !27 

This  sounds  ominously  like  an  echo  from  Naudet28  who,  in  the 

course   of    lauding    Plautus'    infinite   invention   and   variety   of 

Naudet  embroidery,  would  translate  him  into  a  zealous  social 

reformer  by  saying:     "L'auteur  se  proposait  de  faire 

beaucoup  rire  les  spectateurs,  mais  il  voulait  aussi  qu'ils  se  cor- 

2ALa  litterature  latine  depuis  la  fondation  de  Rome  (Paris,  1899),  Bk.  II. 
chap.  3.  sec.  15,  p.  362. 

25Introd.  to  ed.  Most.,  p.  37.  26Bk.  II,  Ch.  4. 

"Lamarre,  op.  cit.,  Bk.  II,  Ch.  4,  Sec.  12,  p.  475. 
-%Thedtre  de  Plnnte  (Paris,  1845),  Introd.  p.  18. 


rigeassent  en  riant."  All  this  is  disappointing.  We  should  have 
expected  Gallic  esprit  to  rise  superior  to  such  banality. 

The  celebrity  of  French  criticism  is  somewhat  redeemed  by 
LeGrand  in  his  monumental  work  entitled  Daos. 
Le Grand  Tableau  de  la  comedie  grecque  pendant  la  periode  dite 
nouvelle  (Annales  de  l'Universite  de  Lyon,  1910),  in 
the  conclusion  to  the  chapter  on  'Intentions  didactiques  et  valeur 
morale'  (Part  III,  Chap.  I,  page  583) :  "Tout  compte  fait,  au 
point  de  vue  moral,  la  vsa  dut  etre  inoffensive  (en  son  temps)." 
This  is  the  culmination  of  a  calm,  dispassionate  discussion  and 
analysis  of  the  extant  remains  of  New  Comedy  and  Palliatae. 

Even  Ritschl  fails  to  escape  the  taint  of  degrading  Plautus  to 
the  status  of  a  petty  moralizer.29  In  particular,  he  lauds  the  Aul. 
unreservedly  as  a  chef  d'oeuvre  of  character  delineation  and 
pronounces  it  immeasurably  superior  to  Moliere's  imitation, 
"L'Avare."30  This  whole  critique,  while  interesting,  falls  into  the 
prevailing  trend  of  imputing  to  Plautus  far  too  high  a  plane  of 
dramatic  artistry.31 

Indeed,  Langen  has  already  scored  Ritschl  on  this  very  point 
in  remarking32  that  Ritschl's  condemnation  of  an 
Langen  alleged  defect  in  the  Cas33  implies  much  too  favorable 

an  estimate  of  Plautus'  artistic  worth,  as  the  defects 
cited  are  represented  as  something  isolated  and  remarkable, 
whereas  they  are  characteristic  of  Plautine  comedy.  Langen  still 
displays  clear-headed  judgment  when  he  says  of  the  Miles34: 
"Wenn  die  Farben  so  stark  aufgetragen  werden,  hort  jedeFeinhj't 
der  Charakterzeichnung  auf  und  bei  einem  Dichter,  der  sich  dies 
gestattet,  darf  man  beziiglich  der  Charakterschilderungen  nicht  zu 
viele  Anspruche  machen.  Es  ist  sehr  wahrscheinlich,  dass  Plautus 
mit  Rucksicht  auf  den  Geschmack  seines  Publikums  die  Ziige 
des  Originals  sehr  vergrobert  hat." 

But  Langen  fails  to  follow  this  splendid  lead.  Without  taking 
advantage  of  the  license  that  he  himself  offers  the  poet,  he  severely 

MOpuscula  Philologica,  Vol.  II.  p.  743. 

MOpusc.  II.  733  ff. 

31In  Opusc.  III.  455,  Ritschl  relates  that  Varro  wrote  six  books  on  drama, 
with  Plautus  as  the  especial  object  of  his  interest:  de  originibus  scaenicis, 
de  scaenicis  actionibus,  de  actibus  scaenicis,  de  personis,  de  descriptionibus, 
quaestiones  Plantinae. 

32Langen,  op.  cit.,  p.  127.  y 

mOpusc.  II.  746.  340p.  cit.,  p.  165. 

13 


condemns35,  the  scene  in  which  Periplecomenus  shouts  out  to  Philo- 
comasium  so  loudly  that  the  soldier's  household  could  not  conceiv- 
ably help  hearing,  whereas  he  is  supposed  to  be  conveying  secret 
information.36  If  carried  out  in  a  broadly  farcical  spirit,  the  scene 
becomes  potentially  amusing. 

Mommsen  in  his  History*1  ,in  the  course  of  an  interesting  discus- 
sion on  palliatae  and  their  Greek  originals,  has  a  far 
Mommsen  saner  point  of  view.  He  says  of  the  authors  of  New 
Comedy:37  "They  wrote  not  like  Eupolis  and 
Aristophanes  for  a  great  nation-,  but  rather  for  a  cultivated  society 
which  spent  its  time  ...  in  guessing  riddles  and  playing 
at  charades.  .  .  .  Even  in  the  dim  Latin  copy,  through  which 
we  chiefly  know  it,  the  grace  of  the  original  is  not  wholly  oblitera- 
ted. <In  palliatae  >  persons  and  incidents  seem  capriciously  or 
carelessly  shuffled  as  in  a  game  of  cards;  in  the  original  a  picture 
from  life,  it  became  in  the  reproduction  a  caricature." 

Naturally  we  are  not  concerned  with  any  consideration  of  the 
value  of  his  estimate  of  New  Comedy.  Assuredly  he  rates  it  too 
highly,  as  later  investigations  have  indicated.38  But  here  for  the 
first  time  we  are  able  to  quote  a  well-balanced  appreciation  of  some 
essential  features  of  Plautine  drama:  a  "capricious  shuffling  of 
incidents"  and  "caricature."  In  fact  it  will  be  our  endeavor  to 
show  that  the  palliata  was  not  a  true  art  form,  but  merely  an  outer 
shell  or  mold  into  which  Plautus  poured  his  stock  of  witticisms. 

Still  more  trenchant  is  the  conclusion  of  Korting  in  his  Geschichte 

des  griechischen  una1  romischen  Theaters  (P.  218  ff.):     "Die  neue 

attische  Komodie  und  folglich  auch  ihr  Abklatsch, 

Korting         die  romische  Palliata,  war  nicht  ein  Lustspiel  im 

hochsten,  im  sittlichen  Sinne  des  Wortes,  sondern  ein 

blosses  Unterhaltungsdrama.     Amusieren  wollten  die  Komodien- 

dichter,    nichts   weiter.     Jedes   hohere   Streben   lag   ihnen   fern. 

Wohl   spickten   sie  ihre   Lustspiele   mit   moralischen   Sentenzen. 

.     Aber  die  schonen  Sentenzen  sind  eben  nur  Zierat,  sind 

nur  Verbramung  einer  in  ihrem  Kerne  und  Wesen  durch  und  durch 

unsittlichen  Dichtung     .     .     .     Mit  der  Wahrscheinlichkeit    der 

Handlung  wird  es  sehr  leicht  genommen :     die  seltsamsten  Zufalle 

350p.  cit.,  p.  167. 

36Mil.  522  ff.  (All  citations  from  Plautus  are  based  on  the  text  and  number- 
ing of  the  lines  in  the  text  of  Goetz  and  Schoell). 

zlHistory  of  Rome,  (Transl.  Dickson,  Scribner,  N.  Y.,  1900),  Vol.  Ill,  p.  143. 

38E.g.,  LeGrand,  Daos,  V.  supra.     Cf.  also  N.  80,  Part  II. 

14 


werden  als  so  ziemlich  selbstverstandliche  Moglichkeiten  hinge- 
stellt.  .  .  Es  ginge  das  noch  an,  wenn  wir  in  eine  phantastische 
Marchenwelt  geftihrt  werden,  in  welcher  am  Ende  auch  das 
Wunderbarste  moglich  ist,  aber  nein!  es  wird  uns  zugemutet, 
iiberzeugt  zu  sein,  dass  alles  mit  natiirlichen  Dingen  zugehe. 

"Alles  in  allem  genommen,  ist  an  dieser  Komodie,  abgesehen  von 
ihrer  formal  musterhaften  Technik,  herzlich  wenig  zu  bewundern. 
.  .  .  An  Zweideutigkeiten,  Obsconitaten,  Schimpfscenen  ist 
Uberfluss  vorhanden." 

With  admirable  clarity  of  vision,  Korting  has  spied  the  vital  spot 
and  illuminated  it  with  the  word  "Unterhaltungsdrama."  That 
amusement  was  the  sole  aim  of  the  comic  poets  we  firmly  believe. 
But  if  this  was  so,  why  arraign  them  on  the  charge  of  trying  to  con- 
vince us  that  everything  is  happening  in  a  perfectly  natural  manner  ? 
The  outer  form  to  be  sure  is  that  of  everyday  life,  but  this  is  no 
proof  that  the  poets  demanded  of  their  audiences  a  belief  in  the 
verisimilitude  of  the  events  depicted.  Can  we  have  no  fantastic 
fairyland  without  some  outlandish  accompaniment  such  as  a 
chorus  garbed  as  birds  or  frogs  ?  But  we  reserve  fuller  discussion 
of  this  point  until  later.  We  might  suggest  an  interesting  com- 
parison to  the  nonsense  verse  of  W.  S.  Gilbert,  which  represents  the 
most  shocking  ideas  in  a  style  even  nonchalantly  matter-of-fact. 
Does  Gilbert  by  any  chance  actually  wish  us  to  believe  that 
"Gentle  Alice  Brown,"  in  the  poem  of  the  same  name,  really  assisted 
in  "cutting  up  a  little  lad"? 

Korting  regains  his  usual  clear-headedness  in  pronouncing  'that 
there  is  little  in  the  technique  of  palliatae  to  excite  our  admiration.' 
Again  we  insist  (to  borrow  the  jargon  of  the  modern  dramatic 
critic)  it  was  but  a  "vehicle"  for  popular  amusement. 

Wilhelm  Schlegel,  in  his  History  of  the  Drama™  has  the  point 
of  view  of  the  dramatic  critic,  rather  than  the  professional  scholar; 
while  expressing  a  measure  of  admiration  for  the 
Schlegel  significance  of  Plautus  in  literature,  he  is  impelled  to 
say:  "The  bold,  coarse  style  of  Plautus  and  his 
famous  jokes,  savour  of  his  familiarity  with  the  vulgar  .  .  . 
<He>  mostly  inclines  to  the  farcical,  to  overwrought  and  often 
disgusting  drollery."  This  is  doubtless  true,  but,  by  making  the 
incidental  a  criterion  for  the  whole,  it  gives  a  gross  misconception 
to  one  that  has  not  read  Plautus. 

39P.  190,  trans.  John  Black  (London,  1846),  Lecture  XIV. 

15 


J.  W.  Donaldson,  in  his  lectures  on  the  Greek  theatre,40  has 

plagiarized  Schlegel  practically  verbatim,  while  giving  the  scantest 

credit  to  his  source.     His  work  thus  loses  value,  as 

Donaldson    being  a  mere  echo,  or  compilation  of  second-hand 

material. 

We  learn  from  Schlegel  that  Goethe  was  so  enamored  of  ancient 
comedy  that  he  enthusiastically  superintended  the  translation  and 
production  of  plays  of  Plautus  and  Terence.  Says  Schlegel:41 
"I  once  witnessed  at  Weimar  a  representation  of  the  Adelphi  of 
Terence,  entirely  in  ancient  costume,  which,  under  the  direction  of 
Goethe,  furnished  us  a  truly  Attic  evening." 

In  this  connection  the  opinion  of  Sir  Walter  Scott  may  be 
interesting.  He  too,  not  being  a  classical  scholar  par  excellence, 
may  be  better  equipped  for  sound  judgment.  In 
Scott  the  introduction  to  Dryden's  Amphitryon  he  says: 

"Plautus  .  .  .  left  us  a  play  on  the  subject  of 
Amphitryon  which  has  had  the  honour  to  be  deemed  worthy  of 
imitation  by  Moliere  and  Dryden.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  the 
plain,  blunt  and  inartificial  style  of  so  rude  an  age  should  bear  any 
comparison  with  that  of  the  authors  who  enjoyed  the  highest 
advantages  of  the  polished  times  to  which  they  were  an  ornament." 
There  speaks  the  sophisticated  and  conscious  literary  technician  !42 

The  most  comprehensive  and  judicious  estimate  of  all  is  cer- 
tainly attained  by  LeGrand  in  Daos.i3  He  appreciates  clearly 
that  "la  nouvelle  comedie  n'  a  pas  ete,  en  toute  circon- 
LeGrand  stance,  une  comedie  distinguee.  Elle  n'  a  pas 
dedaigne  constamment  la  farce  et  le  gros  rire."44 
How  much  more  then  would  this  apply  to  palliatae ! 

We  now  believe  that  we  have  on  hand  a  sufficiently  large  volume 
of  criticism  to  appreciate  practically  every  phase  of  judgment  to 
which  Plautus  has  been  subjected.45  The  ancients  overrated  him 
stylistically,  but  he  was  a  man  of  their  own  people.  Men  such  as 
Becker,  Weise,  Lorenz  and  Langrehr  have  proceeded  upon  a  dis- 

40Theatre  of  the  Greeks,  p.  443.  41P.  197. 

^Cf .  Ritschl's  opinion,  Note  30. 

«V.  supra.  44P.  620.     But  cf.  Note  37. 

45Cf.  farther  Plessis,  La  poesie  latine  (Paris,  1909),  p.  54  ff.;  Patin,  Etudes 
sur  la  poesie  latine  (Paris,i869),  Vol.  II,  p.  224  ff.;  Ribbeck,  Geschichte  der 
romischen  Dichtimg  (Stuttgart,  1894),  Vol.  I,  p.  57  ff.;  Tyrrell,  Early  Latin 
Poetry,  p.  44  ff.  A  very  excellent  discussion  is  contained  in  Duff,  A  Literary 
History  of  Rome  (N.  Y.,  1909),  p.  183  ff. 

16 


tinctly  exaggerated  ideal  of  Plautus'  eminence  as  a  master  dramatic 
craftsman  and  literary  artist  and  therefore  have  amputated  with 
the  cry  of  "Spurious !"  everything  that  offends  their  ideal.  Lessing 
is  obsessed  with  too  high  an  estimate  of  the  Captivi.  Lamarre, 
Naudet  and  Ritschl  commit  the  error  of  imputing  to  our  poet  a  moral  ^ 

purpose.     Schlegel  and  Scott  deprecate  the  crudity  of  his  wit  with- 0rjA 
out  an  adequate  appreciation  of  its  sturdy  and  primeval  robustness.  ^""vL 
Langen,  Mommsen,  Korting  and  LeGrand  approach  a  keen  esti-      **^ 
mate  of  his  inconsistencies  and  his  single-minded  purpose  of  enter- 
tainment, but  Korting  accuses  him  of  attempting  to  create  an 
illusion  of  life  while  aiming  solely  at  provoking  laughter. 

From  this  heterogeneous  mass  of  diversified  criticism  we  glean 
the  prevailing  idea  that  Plautus  is  lauded  or  condemned  according  - 
to  his  conformity  or  non-conformity  to  some  preconceived  standard 
of  comedy  situate  in  the  critic's  mind,  without  a  consideration  of 
the  poet's  original  purpose.  We  must  seriously  propound  the 
question  as  to  how  far  a  grave  injustice  has  been  done  him  almost 
universally  in .  criticising  him  for  what  he  does  not  pretend  to  be. 
Did  Plautus  himself  suffer  from  any  illusion  that  his  plays  were 
constructed  with  cogent  and  consummate  technique  ?  Did  he  for  a 
single  instant  imagine  himself  the  inspired  reformer  of  public 
morality?  Did  he  believe  that  his  style  was  elegant  and  polished? 
Indeed,  he  must  have  effected  an  appreciable  refinement  of  the 
vernacular  of  his  age  to  produce  his  lively  verse,  but  without 
losing  the  robust  vitality  of  ' ' Volkswitz. ' '  Or  is  it  true  that  nothing 
further  than  amusement  lay  within  his  scope  ? 

If  so,  we  may  at  least  posit  that  almost  unbounded  license 
must  be  allowed  the  pen  which  aims  simply  to  raise  a  laugh.  We 
do  not  fulminate  against  a  treatise  on  Quaternions  because  it  lacks 
humor.  If  the  drawings  of  cartoonists  are  anatomically  incorrect, 
we  are  smilingly  indulgent.  Do  we  condemn  a  vaudeville  skit 
for  not  conforming  to  the  Aristotelian  code  of  dramatic  technique  ? 
Assuredly  we  do  not  rise  in  disgust  from  a  musical  comedy  because 
"in  real  life"  a  bevy  of  shapely  maidens  in  scant  attire  never  goes 
tripping  and  singing  blithely  though  the  streets.  If  then  we  can 
establish  that  Plautus  regarded  his  adapted  dramas  merely  as  a 
rack  on  which  to  hang  witticisms,  merely  as  a  medium  for  laugh- 
provoking  sallies  and  situations,  we  have  at  once  Plautus  as  he 
pretended  to  be,  and  in  large  measure  the  answer  to  the  original 
question:     "What  manner  of  drama  is  this?" 

17 


We  say  only  "in  large  measure," because  it  is  part  of  our  endeavor 
to  settle  accurately  the  position  of  our  author  in  the  dramatic  scale, 
considered  of  necessity  from  the  modern  viewpoint.  We  cannot 
believe  that  he  had  any  pretensions  to  refined  art  in  play  building, 
or  rather  rebuilding,  or  to  any  superficial  elegance  of  style,  or  to 
any  moralizing  pose.  ,We  believe  him  an  entertainer  pure  and 
simple,  who  never  restricted  himself  in  his  means  except  by  the 
outer  conventions  and  form  of  the  Greek  New  Comedy  and  the 
Roman  stage,  provided  his  single  aim,  that  of  affording  amuse- 
ment, was  attained.J  To  establish  this  belief,  and  at  the  same  time 
to  interpret  accurately  the  nature  of  his  plays  and  the  means  and 
effect  of  their  production,  is  our  thesis. 

If  then  we  run  the  gamut  of  the  dramatic  scale,  we  observe  that 
as  we  descend  from  the  higher  forms,  such  as  tragedy,  psychological 
drama  and  "straight  comedy,"  to  the  lower,  such  as  musical 
comedy  and  burlesque,  the  license  allowed  playwright  and  actor 
increases  so  radically  that  we  have  a  difference  of  kind  rather  than 
of  degree.  Certain  conventions  of  course  are  common  to  all  types. 
The  "missing  fourth  side"  of  the  room  is  a  commonplace  recog- 
nized by  all.  If  we  ourselves  are  never  in  the  habit  of  communi- 
cating the  contents  of  our  letters,  as  we  write,  to  a  doubtless 
appreciative  atmosphere,  we  never  cavil  at  such  an  act  on  the  stage. 
The  stage  whisper  and  aside,  too,  we  accept  with  benevolent 
indulgence;  but  it  is  worth  noting  that  in  the  attempted  verisi- 
militude of  the  modern  "legitimate"  drama,  the  aside  has  well 
nigh  vanished.  As  we  go  down  the  scale  through  light  comedy  and 
broad  farce  these  conventions  multiply  rapidly. 

With  the  introduction  of  music  come  further  absurdities. 
Melodious  voicing  of  our  thoughts  is  in  itself  essentially  unnatural, 
to  say  the  least.  Grand  opera,  great  art  form  as  it  may  be,  is 
hopelessly  artificial.  Indeed,  so  far  is  it  removed  from  the  plane 
of  every  day  existence  that  we  are  rudely  jolted  by  the  introduction 
of  too  commonplace  a  thought,  as  when  Sharpless  in  the  English 
version  of  "Madame  Butterfly"  warbles  mellifluously :  "High- 
ball or  straight  ?"  And  when  we  reach  musical  comedy  and  vaude- 
ville, all  thought  of  drama,  technically  speaking,  is  abandoned  in 
watching  the  capers  of  the  "merry-merry"  or  the  outrageous 
"Dutch"  comedian  wielding  his  deadly  newspaper. 

It  is  important  for  our  immediate  purposes  to  note:  first,  (as 
aforesaid),  that  the  amount  of  license  allowed  author  and  actor 


increases  immeasurably  as  we  go  down  the  scale ;  second,  that  the 
degree  of  familiarity  with  the  audience  and  cognizance  of  the 
spectator's  existence  varies  inversely  as  the  degree  of  dramatic 
value.  Thus,  at  one  end  of  the  scale  we  have,  for  instance,  Mrs. 
Fiske,  whose  fondness  for  playing  to  the  centre  of  the  stage  and 
ignoring  the  audience  is  commented  upon  as  a  mannerism ;  at  the 
other,  the  low  comedian  who  says  his  say  or  sings  his  song  directly 
at  the  audience  and  converses  gaily  with  them  as  his  boon  com- 
panions. Now  it  will  be  shown  that  familiar  address  of  the 
audience  and  the  singing  of  monodies  to  musical  accompaniment 
are  essential  features  of  Plautus'  style,  and  many  other  implements 
of  the  lower  types  of  modern  drama  are  among  his  favorite  devices. 
If  then  we  can  place  Plautus  toward  the  bottom  of  the  scale,  we 
relieve  him  vastly  of  responsibility  as  a  dramatist  and  of  the  neces- 
sity of  adherence  to  verisimilitude.  Where  does  he  actually 
belong?  The  answer  must  be  sought  in  a  detailed  consideration 
of  his  methods  of  producing  his  effects  and  in  an  endeavor  to 
ascertain  how  far  the  audience  and  the  acting  contributed  to  them. 

§  2.     The  Performance 
As  it  is  perfectly  patent  that  every  practical  playwright  must 

cater  to  his  public,  the  audience  is  an  essential 
The  Audience     feature   in   our   discussion.    .The   audience   of 

Plautus  was  not  of  a  high  class..  Terence,  even 
in  later  times,  when  education  had  materially  progressed,  often 
failed  to  reach  them  by  over-finesse.  Plautus  with  his  bold  brush 
pleased  them.  Surely  a  turbulent  and  motley  throng  they  were, 
with  the  native  violence  of  the  sun-warmed  Italic  temperament  and 
the  abundant  animal  spirits  of  a  crude  civilization,  tumbling  into 
the  theatre  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  holiday,  scrambling  for  vantage 
points  on.  the  sloping  ground,  if  such  were  handy,  or  a  good  spot 
for  their  camp-stools.  In  view  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  actual 
site  of  the  original  performances,  this  portraiture  is  "atmospheric" 
rather  than  "photographic."  (See  Saunders  in  TAPA.  XLIV, 
19 13).  At  any  rate,  we  have  ample  evidence  of  the  turbulence  of 
the  early  Roman  audience.  (Ter.  Prol.  Hec.  39-42,  and  citations 
immediately  following).  Note  the  description  of  Mommsen :46| 
"The  audience  was  anything  but  genteel.  .  .  .  The  body  o£\ 
spectators  cannot  have  differed  much  from  what  one  sees  in  the 

^History  of  Rome,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  139.     Cf.  note  37. 

19 


present  day  at  public  fireworks  and  gratis  exhibitions.  Naturally, 
therefore,  the  proceedings  were  not  too  orderly;  children  cried,47 
women  talked  and  shrieked,  now  and  then  a  wench  prepared  to 
push  her  way  to  the  stage;  the  ushers  had  on  these  festivals  any- 
thing but  a  holiday,  and  found  frequent  occasion  to  confiscate  a 
mantle  or  to  ply  the  rod."48 

Impatient  if  the  play  be  delayed,  and  voicing  their  disapproval 
by  lusty  clapping,  stamping,  whistling  and  cat-calls,  they  are 
equally  ready  with  noisy  approval  if  the  dramatic  fare  tickle  their 
palate.49  The  tibicen,  as  he  steps  forth  to  render  the  overture,  is 
greeted  uproariously  as  an  old  favorite.  The  manager  perhaps 
appears  and  announces  the  names  of  those  taking  part,  each  one  of 
whom  is  doubtless  applauded  or  hissed  in  proportion  to  his  measure 
of  popularity.  Differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  merits  of  an 
individual  actor  may  culminate  in  the  partisans'  coming  to  blows.50 
Horace  (Ep.  II.  1.200  ff.)  comments  on  the  turbulence  of  the 
audiences  of  his  day  too ;  while  under  the  Empire  factions  for  and 
against  particular  actors  grew  up,  as  in  the  circus.51  Late-comers 
of  course  often  disturbed  the  Prologus  in  his  lines.  The  continual 
reiteration  that  we  find  in  such  prologues  as  the  Amph.,  Cap.  and 
Poen.  was  naturally  designed  as  a  safeguard  against  such  distur- 
bance. Yet  these  prologues  were  undoubtedly  composed,  as 
Ritschl  has  shown  {Par.  232  ff.),  shortly  after  146  B.  C,  and  the 
turbulence  of  the  original  audience  must  have  been  far  greater. 

To  win  the  favor  of  such  a  crowd,  which  would  groan  if  instead  of 
the  expected  comedy  a  tragedy  should  be  announced,52  what 
methods  were  necessary?  Slap-sticks,  horse-play,  broad  slashing 
swashbuckling  humor,  thick  colors  daubed  on  with  lavish  brush! 

By  Cicero's  time  the  public  had  attained  to  such  a  degree  of 
sophistication  that  the  slightest  slip  on  the  part  of  the  wretched 
actor  was  greeted  by  a  storm  of  popular  disapproval.     "Histrio  si 

47Cf.  Prol.  Poen.  28-9.  4SProl.  Poen.,  11  ff. 

A9Plaudere,  ird\iv,  sibilare  or  exsibilare,  explodere,  eicere  were  expressions 
used  to  indicate  approval  or  disapproval.  Cf.  the  discussion  of  Oehmichen, 
article  Biihnenwesen  in  Von  Miiller's  Handbuch  der  klassischen  Altertumswis- 
senschaft,  5ter  Band,  3te  Abteilung,  §  73.  2,  p.  271. 

60Cf.  Prol.  Poen.  36  ff. 

61Cf.  Tac.  Ann.  1.77.  V.  Oehmichen,  op.  cit.,  §  39.3,  p.  220.  I 

52V.  Prol.  Amph.  52-3: 

Quid  contraxistis  frontem?     Quia  tragoediam 
Dixi  futuram  hanc? 


paulum  se  movit  extra  numerum,  aut  si  versus  pronuntiatus  est 
syllaba  una  brevior  aut  longior,  exsibilatur,  exploditur,"  says 
Cicero.53  The  actor  dare  not  even  have  a  cold,  for  on  the  slightest 
manifestation  of  hoarseness,  he  was  hooted  off,  though  favorites 
such  as  Roscius  might  be  excused  on  the  plea  of  indisposition.54 
The  Scholiast  Cruquius  to  Hor.  Ser.  I.  10.37  ff.  notes:  "Poemata 
.  .  .  in  theatris  exhibita  imperitae  multitudinis  applausum 
captare." 

It  is  evident  from  all  this  that,  while  the  Roman  public  had  made 
considerable  advances  in  education,  their  demonstrative  tempera- 
ment had  not  cooled.  It  seems  eminently  fair  to  deduce  that  the 
far  ruder  and  less  cultivated  audiences  of  Plautus'  day  were  even 
more  violent  in  their  manifestations  of  pleasure  and  displeasure,  but 
that  their  criterion  of  taste  was  solely  the  amount  of  amusement 
derived  from  the  performance52  and  that  they  bothered  themselves 
little  about  niceties  of  rhythm.  To  the  Roman,  the  scenic  and 
histrionic  were  the  vital  features  of  a  production.  Again  we 
reiterate,  only  the  bold  brush  could  have  pleased  them. 

That  the  plays  of  Plautus  attained  a  permanent  position  in  the 
theatrical  repertoire  of  Rome  is  of  course  well  known ;  but  he  wrote 
primarily  for  his  own  age,  and  in  a  difficult  environment.  Not 
only  did  he  have  to  please  a  highly  volatile  and  inflammable  public, 
but  he  must  have  been  forced  to  exercise  tact  to  avoid  offending  the 
patrician  powers,  as  the  imprisonment  of  Naevius  indicates. 
Mommsen  has  an  apt  summary:55  "Under  such  circumstances, 
where  art  worked  for  daily  wages  and  the  artist  instead  of  receiving 
due  honour  was  subjected  to  disgrace,  the  new  national  theatre  of 
the  Romans  could  not  present  any  development  either  original  or 
even  at  all  artistic." 

This  brief  discussion  of  the  relation  between  public  and  play- 
wright will  suffice  for  our  purposes.  In  ths  coarse  of  it  we  have 
insensibly  encroached  upon  the  next  topic:  the 
The  Actor  relation  of  public  and  actor.  Who  after  all  is  the 
chief  factor  in  the  success  or  failure  of  a  drama,  in 
spite  of  the  oft  misquoted  adage,  "The  play's  the  thing?"  The 
actor!     The  actor,  who  can  mouth  and  tear  a  passion  to  tatters, 

^Parad.    III.    2.26.      Cf.    Or.    51.173,   de   Or.    III.    50.196:      "theatra    tola 
reclamant" ;   Hor.  Ep.  II.  1.200  ff.;   Suet.  Nero,  24.1. 
54Cic.  de  Or.  I.61.259,  I.  27.124. 
bbHist.  Rome,  ed.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  140. 


or  swing  a  piece  of  trumpery  into  popular  favor  by  the  brute  force 
of  his  dash  and  personality.  That  this  was  true  in  Plautus'  day, 
no  less  than  in  our  own,  is  plainly  indicated  by  the  personal  allusion 
inserted  in  the  Bac.  (214-5) : 

Etiam  Epidicum,  quam  ego  fabulam  aeque  ac  me  ipsum  amo, 

Nullam  aeque  invitus  specto,  si  agit  Pellio. 
The  servile  status  of  the  ancient  actor  is  an  index  to  the  energy 
of  his  performance,  if  to  nothing  else.  Failure  meant  a  beating, 
success  a  drink  at  least.56  Augustus  humanely  abrogated  the 
whipping  of  actors,  but  an  attempt  was  made  in  Tiberius"time  to 
renew  the  practice.57  On  the  other  hand,  there  seem  to  have  been 
prizes  awarded  to  successful  actors,58  as  well  as  to  the  poet;59  but 
this  practice  surely  arose  after  Plautus'  lifetime.  At  any  rate, 
whatever  was  the  nature  of  the  reward,  in  his  day  the  large  emolu- 
ments won  by  Rosciusand  other  popular  favorites  were  impossible.60 
The  effort  demanded  by  the  elaborate  education  of  the  actor,61 
in  which  naturally  gesticulation  was  the  most  vital  element,  was 
out  of  all  proportion  to  the  precarious  reward.  A  rigid  course  of 
training  was  prescribed  and  strenuous  exercises  were  required,  for 
both  actor  and  orator  to  keep  the  voice  in  proper  form.62  Indeed, 
Quintilian  advises  the  budding  orator  to  take  instruction  in  voice 
production  and  gesticulation  from  the  comic  actor.63  For  the 
comic  actor  was  at  all  times  recognized  as  livelier  and  more  vivid  in 
his  performance  than  the  tragedian64.  The  two  were  usually 
sharply  differentiated.65  Specialization  arose,  too,  and  we  hear  of 
actors  who  confined  their  efforts  to  feminine  roles,66  though  natur- 

5&Cist.  785:  Qui  deliquit  vapulabit,  qui  non  deliquit  bibet.  Cf.  Trin.  990. 
Amph.  83-4,  (if  this  is  not  merely  an  imitation  of  the  Greek  original) . 

57Tac.  Ann.  1.77. 

b*Amph.  65  E.,  Poen.  36  8. ,Ter.  Phor.  i6ff.,Cic.  ad  Att.lV.  15.6,  Hor.  Ep. 
II.  1.181. 

i9Cas.  17  ff.,  Trin.  706  ff.  But  others  argue  that  these  passages  are  only- 
translations  from  the  Greek.  V.  Leo  in  Hermes,  1883,  p.  561,  F.  Ostermayer, 
De  hist.  fab.  in  com.  PI.  (Greifswald,  1884),  p.  7.  Ritschl  (Parerga,  p.  229) 
argues  that  the  passages  refer  to  cases  of  extraordinary  public  approval,  not 
to  formal  contests.     Cf.  Var.  L.L.  V.  178. 

60Cic.  pro.  Ros.  Com.  10.28-9,  Plin.  N.  H.  7.39.128,  Dio  77.21.  Cf.  Sen. 
Ep.  80.7. 

6IKorting,  op.  cit.,  p.  244  ff. 

62Cic.  de  Or.  1. 59.251,  Suet.  Nero  20,  Quint.  XL  3.19. 

63I.ii.i-2,  I.  11. 12.  64Quint.  XL  3.  in. 

65Cic.  Or.  31.109.  66Quint.  XL  3.178,   Juv.  III.  98-9. 


ally  every  performer  was  cast  for  parts  to  which  his  physique  was 
best  suited.67 

It  is  doubtful  whether  such  an  elaborate  system  had  been 
developed  in  Plautus'  time,  but  this  much  is  certain:  the  come- 
dian was  on  the  stage  lively,  energetic  and  constantly  spurred  on 
by  the  fear  of  punishment  from  the  dominus  gregis  and  the  violent 
disapproval  of  a  fickle,  tempestuous  and  withal  exacting  public. 
Polybius68  relates  that  the  visit  of  a  troupe  of  Greek  actors  to  Rome 
was  a  failure  because  of  their  over -staid  deportment,  until,  learning 
the  desires  of  the  volatile  Italians,  they  improvised  a  vastly  more 
vivid  pantomime  depicting  a  mock  battle,  with  huge  success. 
Assuredly  the  early  Roman  comedian  must  have  acted  with  greater 
abandon  and  clownish  drollery,  if  not  with  the  elaborate  histrionic 
technique  of  the  later  actor.69  We  have  heard  Dr.  Charles  Knapp 
relate  that  the  performance  of  the  Ajax  of  Sophocles  by  a  troupe 
of  modern  Greek  players  went  with  amazing  and  incredible 
rapidity  and  vivacity.  It  is  all  of  a  piece.  We  must  inevitably 
associate  vivid  temperament  with  the  sons  of  the  Mediterranean  in 
all  ages.  Yet  we  have  just  seen  that  the  Greeks  of  old  were  too 
self-contained  for  their  Italian  brethren. 

With  this  brief  discussion  of  the  condition,  incentive  and 
motive  of  the  Plautine  actor,  let  us  pass  on  to  a  more  detailed 

consideration  of  his  methods  and  technique.  Natur- 
The  ally  by  far  the  most  important  part  of  this  was 

Histrionism  gesture.     Here  again,  while  some  of  our  evidence  is 

somewhat  unreliable,  practically  every  shred  of 
extant  testimony  indicates  an  extreme  liveliness  and  vivacity.  In 
the  rhetoricians  frequent  warning  is  issued  to  the  forensic  neophyte 
to  avoid  the  unrestraint  of  theatrical  gesticulation.  Cicero  says 
{De  Or.  I.  59.  251):  "Nemo  suaserit  studiosis  dicendi  adules- 
centibus  in  gestu  discendo  histrionum  more  elaborare. ' '  Quintilian 
echoes  (I.  11.3) :  "Ne  gestus  quidem  omnis  ac  motus  a  comediis 
petendus  est.  .  .  .  Orator  plurimum  .  .  .  aberit  a  scaenico, 
nee  vultu   nee   manu  nee   excursionibus   nimius."     And  in   the 

67Cic.  de  Off.  I.  31. 1 14,  ad   Att.  IV.  15.6. 

68Ap.  Athen.  XIV.  615  A. 

69For  a  full  discussion  of  the  ancient  actor  v.  Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-Encyclo- 
pddie  der  classischen  Altertumswissenschaft,  s.  v.  histrio;  Friedlander  in 
Marquardt-Mommsen  Handbuch  der  romischen  Altertiimer,  VI.  p.  508  ff. ; 
J.  van  Wageningen,  Scaenica  Romana;  Warnecke,  Die  Vortragskunst  der 
romischen  Schanspieler,  in  Neue  Jahrbiicher,  1908,  p.  704  ff. 

23 


Auctor  ad  Herennium  we  find  (III.  15.26):  "Convenit  igitur  in 
vultu  et  pudorem  nee  acrimoniam  esse,  in  gestu  et  venustatem  nee 
turpitudinem,  ne  aut  histriones  aut  operarii  videamur  esse."70 
That  the  nature  and  liveliness  of  gesture  on  the  stage  was  deter- 
mined by  the  character  portrayed,  it  is  almost  needless  to  say.71 

Cicero's  analysis  {de  Or.  III.  59.220)  of  the  difference  between 
theatrical  and  forensic  gesture  implies  that  the  former  illustrates 
individual  words  and  ideas,  while  the  latter  comprehends  more 
broadly  the  general  thought  and  sentiment.72  It  is  most  unfor- 
tunate that  we  have  lost  Cicero's  treatise  De  Gestu  Histrionis.™ 

By  Cicero's  time  a  more  restrained  mode  of  acting  was  evidently 
considered  good  taste;  witness  de  Off.  (I.  36.  130):  "Histrionum 
non  nulli  gestus  ineptiis  non  vacant,  .  .  .  et  quae  sunt  recta  et 
simplicia  laudantur."74  But  the  passages  cited  above  bear  ample 
testimony  to  the  vigor  of  histrionic  gesticulation  even  at  this  later 
and  far  more  cultivated  epoch.  Again  we  repeat,  what  must  have 
been  the  energy  and  abandon  of  the  original  Plautine  actor?75 

Apart  from  the  rhetoricians,  the  most  fruitful  literary  source  of 
our  information  on  gesture  is  Donatus'  commentary  on  Terence. 
The  trustworthiness  of  this  has  been  the  subject  of  much  argument. 
Sittl76  accuses  him  of  speaking  merely  from  the  standpoint  of  a 
professor  of  rhetoric,  as  comedies  of  Terence  were  no  longer 
given  in  the  time  of  Donatus.  Weinberger,  in  his  "Beitrage  zu 
den  Buhnenaltherthumern  aus  Donats  Terenz-commentar,"77 
admonishes  us  to  be  very  careful  not  to  put  too  high  a  value  on  the 
commentary.  Van  Wageningen78  is  of  the  opinion  that  much  of 
the  work  was  inspired  by  Donatus'  having  seen  in  his  own  time 

70Cf.  de  Or.  III.  56.214,  III.  22.83,  Quint.  XL  3.125,  181-2. 

71Quint.  XL  3.  112. 

72Cf.  Quint.  XL  3.89.  "Cic.  ad  Alt.  VI.  1.8. 

74Cf.  de  Or.  III.  26.102,  Quint.  XL  3.71,  89. 

75For  further  treatment  of  the  gestures  of  orators  see  Pauly-Wissowa, 
Real-Encyclopddie,  s.  v.  histrio;  Warnecke  in  Neue  Jahrbucher,  1910,  p.  593; 
Sittl,  Die  Gebdrden  der  Griechen  und  Romer,  Chap.  XI;  Mart.  Cap.  43.  In 
the  other  rhetoricians  of  the  later  Empire  there  is  much  copying  of  Cicero 
and  Quintilian,  but  nothing  of  significance  for  our  purpose,  unless  it  be  the 
comparison  of  the  rigid  training  recommended  to  the  embryo  orator.  For 
further  citations,  V.  Pauly-Wissowa,  op.  cit. 

760p.  cit.,  p.  203. 

"Wiener  Studien,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  120. 

78Scaen.  Rom.,  p.  52.  Cf .  Karsten  in  Mnem.  XXXII,  (1904),  pp.  209-251, 
287-322,  who  concludes  that  at  least  four  hands  aided  in  the  commentaries. 

24 


unmasked  actors  play.  To  this  view  color  is  lent  by  Donatus'  note 
to  And.  716 :  "Sive  haec  <Mysis  >  personatis  viris  agitur,  ut  apud 
veteres,  sive  per  mulierem,  ut  nunc  videmus." 

If  this  is  true,  it  makes  Donatus'  work  of  more  significance  to  us, 
as  it  would  imply  a  harking  back  to  the  play  of  feature  of  the 
unmasked  performances  of  Plautus'  day.  But  while  it  is  certain 
that  Donatus  had  other  sources  than  the  Terentian  text  for  his 
annotations,79  it  is  equally  certain  that  practically  everything  he 
has  to  say  relative  to  gesture  and  stage  business  is  readily  to  be 
deduced  from  the  text  and  is  in  the  main  interesting  only  as  a  com- 
pilation.80 However,  everything  he  says  continues  to  point  per- 
sistently to  lively  gesture  and  action;  and  this  too  in  Terentian 
comedy,  where  the  text  makes  far  less  rigorous  demands  on  the 
actor's  muscles  than  in  Plautus'  works. 

Donatus  remarks  occasionally  that  certain  words  must  have 
been  accompanied  by  especially  expressive  gesture  and  byplay, 
evidently  of  feature,  as  vultuose,  cum  gestu  and  similar  phrases  are 
used  to  indicate  this.81  His  note  to  And.  722  is:  "Haec  scaena 
actuosa  est :  magis  enim  in  gestu  quam  in  oratione  est  constituta. ' ' 
Of  gestures  emphatic  and  yet  not  foreign  to  everyday  life  Quin- 
tilian  notes  (XI.  3 .  123):  "Femur  ferire — et  usitatum  et  indignan- 
tis  decet";  a  movement  plainly  employed  in  Mil.  204  and  True. 
601.  But,  says  Quintilian  further'  (ib.) :  "Complodere  manus 
scaenicum  est  et  pectus  caedere."82 

One  of  the  notable  "hits"  of  the  ancient  stage  is  recorded  by 
Donatus  ad  Phor.  315 :  Ambivius  (as  Phormio)  entered  "oscitans 
temulenter  atque  aurem  minimo  scalpens  digitulo  .  .  .  et 
labia  lingens  ut  ebrius  et  ructans."  But  Ambivius'  potations 
resulted  in  an  extremely  spirited  and  lifelike  imitation  of  the 
parasite  character  and  he  was  forthwith  forgiven  his  drunkenness. 

Passing  mention  must  be  made  of  the  Terentian  Mss.  illustra- 
tions, though  they  add  but  little  weight  to  the  foregoing.  For  a 
complete  list  of  their  sources  and  editions  see  Sittl,  "Gebarden  der 

79E.g.,  Donat.  ad  And.  88,  Eun.  187,  986,  Phor.  315. 

80A11  the  passages  in  Donatus  dealing  with  gesture  have  been  collected  by 
Leo,  Rheinisches  Museum  XXXVIII,  p.  331  ff. 

81E.g.,  Donat.  ad  And.  180,  363,  380-1,  Eun.  209,  559,  974,  Ad.  84, 
499,  661,  795,  951,  Hec.  612,  689,  Phor.  49,  315.  Cf.  Ad.  285:  superbe  ac 
magnifice.  Cf.  Schol.  ad  And.  332:  Vultuose  hoc  dicitur,  hoc  est  cum  gestu. 
•Cf.  also  Warnecke  in  Neue  Jahrbiicher,  1910,  note  75. 

82Cf.  XI.  3.  103,  Auct.  ad  Her.  III.  15.27. 

25 


Griechen  und  Romer,"  Chap.  XI,  p.  203  ff.83  But  whatever  be  the 
exact  date  of  the  original,  in  our  extant  copies  the  old  traditional 
gestures  are  lost  and  the  gesture  of  everyday  life  supplied.  In 
fact,  in  the  analyses  appended  by  Leo,  van  Wageningen  and 
Warnecke,  in  the  works  cited  above,  we  arrive  at  little  but  that  the 
gestures  natural  to  any  Italian-born  person  in  a  like  situation  are 
reproduced,  such  as  "gestus  abeuntis,  cogitantis,  parasiti,"  etc. 
It  is  almost  too  much  to  make  any  of  this  a  basis  for  argument  as  to 
classical  and  pre-classical  stage-craft.  It  is  at  least  significant  that 
every  character  with  hands  free  is  gesticulating  and  the  scene  from 
Eun.  IV.  6-7  is  evidently  full  of  vigorous  action. 

An  old  and  discursive  article84  by  T.  Baden,  containing  a  descrip- 
tion and  analysis  of  the  gestures  and  posture  of  a  number  of  familiar 
figures  from  comedy  exemplified  in  some  collections  of  statuettes 
(chiefly  those  in  Borgia's  Museum  of  Baden's  time),,  is  open  to  the 
same  objection  as  the  above.  The  gestures  of  slave,  pander, 
parasite,  etc.,  described  in  the  article  are  lively  and  expressive  to 
be  sure,  but  contain  little  to  differentiate  them  from  those  of 
daily  life. 

While  much  of  our  evidence  is  still  to  come,  we  believe  that  we 
are  already  justified  in  the  deduction  that  the  actor  contemporary 
with  Plautus  must  have  indulged  in  the  extravagances  of  the 
players  in  the  Atellan  farces  and  the  mimes.  The  mimus  of  the 
Empire,  we  know,  specialized  in  ridiculous  facial  contortions.85 

We  must  not  forget  too  the  vivacity  indicated  by  the  comic 
scenes  among  the  Pompeian  and  Herculanean  wall-paintings,86 
which  have  a  close  kinship  with  the  Terentian  MSS.  pictures.  Nor 
must  we  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  all  our  pictorial  reliquiae  portray 
the  later  masked  characters,  and  hence  play  of  feature,  which  must 
have  been  a  notable  concomitant  of  the  original  Plautine  per- 
formance, is  entirely  obscured. 

^Their  precise  age  and  antiquity  have  been  disputed  with  some  acrimony. 
With  Sittl  cf.  Bethe,  Praef.  Cod.  Ambros.  p.  64;  van  Wageningen,  op.  cit., 
p.  50  ff.;  Leo  in  Rhein.  Mus.  XXXVIII,  p.  342  ff.  V.  reproductions  in  Wieseler, 
Theater gebdude  und  Denkmaler  des  Buhnenwesens  bei  den  Griechen  und  Rbmern, 
Tafel  X;   and  Bethe,  ed.  of  Codex  Ambrosianus. 

MNeue  Jahr.,  Sup.  Band  I  (1832),  p.  447  ff. 

86Quint.  VI.  3.29,  Mart.  Cap.,  Chap.  43,  p.  543  ed.  Kopp. 

86V.  reproductions  in  Baumeister,  Denkmaler  des  klassischen  Altertums,  s.  v. 
"Lustspiel"  and  Wieseler,  op.  cit.,  note  83. 

26 


As  our  intention  is  fundamentally  to  get  at  the  original  intent 
of  our  poet  and  his  actors,  a  discussion  of  the  mask  is  not  in  order. 
Whether  we  agree  with  Donatus'  statement  that  masks  were  first 
introduced  for  comedy  and  tragedy  by  Cincius  Faliscus  and  Minu- 
cius  Prothymus  respectively,87  or  with  Diomedes'  explanation88 
that  Roscius  adopted  them  to  disguise  his  pronounced  squint,  it  is 
certain  that  they  were  not  worn  in  Plautus'  time,  when  wigs  and 
make-up  were  employed  for  characterization.89  In  fact,  the  early 
performances  of  Plautus,  unless  we  except  the  original  Terentian 
productions,  stand  almost  alone  in  the  history  of  Graeco-Roman 
comedy  as  unmasked  plays.  This  would  give  opportunity  for  the 
practice  of  lively  grimace  and  facial  play. 

The  text  itself  contains  not  infrequent  descriptions  of  the  out- 
ward appearance  of  the  characters,  often  pointing  to  grotesqueries 
of  make-up  that  rival  those  of  the  Old  Comedy.  From  As.  400-1 
we  learn  that  Saurea  was : 

Macilentis  malis,  rufulus,  aliquantum  ventriosus, 
Truculentis  oculis,  commoda  statura,  tristi  fronte. 

In  the  Mer.  Lysimachus  is  described  as  a  veritable  thensaurus 
mali  (639-40) : 

Canum,  varum,  ventriosum,  buculentum,  breviculum, 
Subnigris  oculis,  oblongis  malis,  pansam  aliquantulum. 

Curculio  was  one-eyed:  "Unocule,  salve"  (Cur.  392).  Pseudo- 
lus  must  have  been  a  joy  to  the  groundlings  (Ps.  1 2 18  ff .) : 

87Donat.  de  Com.  VI.  3.  There  is  some  suspicion  that  the  names  have  been 
interchanged. 

8SArs  Gram.  Ill,  p.  489.10  K;  Festus,  s.v.  personata,  p.  217.  Cf.  Cic.  de  Nat. 
Deo.  I.  28.79.  Ribbeck,  Romische  Tragbdie  p.  661,  and  Dziatzko  in  Rhein. 
Mus.  XXI.  68,  have  made  a  violent  effort  to  reconcile  the  conflicting  state- 
ments by  arguing  that  Roscius  belonged  to  the  troupe  of  Minucius.  This 
is  denied  by  Weinberger,  Wien.  Stud.  XIV.  126.  For  further  discussion 
v.  van  Wageningen,  Scaen.  Rom.  p.  34  ff.;  Leo  in  Rhein.  Mus.  XXXVIII.  342; 
Oehmichen,  op.  cit.  p.  250;  B.  Arnold,  Ueber  Antike  Theatermasken;  Teuffel, 
Romische  Litter  aturgeschichle\  16.  Sec.  13;  Pauly-Wissowa,  op.  cit.,  s.v.  histrio, 
pp.  2120-21.  A  recent  article  by  Saunders  (A.  J.  P.,  XXXII,  p.  58)  gives 
an  admirable  summing-up  of  the  whole  controversy,  with  substantial  proof 
that  at  any  rate  the  performers  of  Plautus'  day  were  unmasked. 

89Diom.  III.  p.  489. 10  K.  Cf.  Saunders,  Costume  in  Roman  Comedy;  Mar- 
quardt-Mommsen,  Handbuch  der  rbmischen  Altertiimer,  VI.  p.  525;  Pauly- 
Wissowa,  1.  c.     Cf.  Cic.  ad  Fam.  VII.  6. 

27 


Rufus  quidam,  ventriosus,  crassis  suris,  subniger, 
Magno  capite,  acutis  oculis,  ore  rubicundo,  admodum 
Magnis  pedibus.     BA.  Perdidisti,  ut  nominavisti  pedes. 
Pseudolus  fuit  ipsus. 

His  red  slave's  wig  is  thus  made  a  feature  in  the  characterization. 
(Cf.  Ter.  Phor.  51).  When  Trachalio  is  looking  for  the  procurer, 
he  inquires  (Rud.  316  ff.) : 

Ecquem 
Recalvom  ad  Silanum  senem,  statutum,  ventriosum, 
Tortis  superciliis,  contracta  fronte.     .     .      ?90 

The  precise  details  of  the  histrionic  technique  and  "stage  busi- 
ness" in  vogue  must  remain  more  or  less  a  mystery  to  us.  Our 
limitations  in  this  respect  are  admirably  enunciated  by  Saunders 
(TAPA.  XLIV,  p.  97):  "One  must  conclude  then,  that  it  is 
dangerous  to  dogmatize  on  this  subject,  as  on  most  others  connected 
with  the  early  Roman  stage.  Our  evidence  is  too  slight  and  the 
period  of  time  involved  is  too  long.  .  .  ."  We  can,  therefore, 
deal  in  little  but  generalities.  The  Romans  must  have  imitated 
and  developed  their  Greek  and  Etruscan  models.91  When  Livius 
Andronicus  first  fathered  palliatae,  he  must  have  chosen  the  New 
Comedy  not  only  as  the  type  of  drama  most  available  to  him,  but 
as  wholly  adaptable  to  his  audiences.  When  Plautus  wrote,  he  had 
the  machinery  already  built  for  him,  and  he  doubtless  seized  upon 
the  palliata  form  as  the  natural  medium  for  the  exploitation  of  his 
talents.  By  Cicero's  time  considerable  technical  equipment  was 
required;  the  actor  must  be  an  adept  in  gesticulation,  gymnastic 
and  dancing.92  Appreciable  refinement  had  been  reached  in 
Quintilian's  age,  for  he  scores  the  comic  actor  who  departs  too  far 
from  reality  and  pronounces  the  ideal  player  him  who  declaims 
with  a  measured  artistic  heightening  of  everyday  discourse.93  It 
is  noteworthy  that  this  practically  coincides  with  the  accepted 
standard  of  modern  realistic  acting.  But  the  Plautine  actor  could 
never  have  felt  himself  trammeled  by  any  such  narrow  and 
sophisticated  restrictions,  as  we  believe  the  evidence  accumulated 
above  amply  proves.  At  any  rate,  the  delineation  of  different 
roles  must  have  been  at  all  times  strictly  in  character.     The  need 

90Cf.  Mil.  629  ff.,  923,  Ps.  967,  Rud.  125  f.,  313  f.,  1303,  Trin.  861  f.,  True. 
286  ff.;    Ter.,  Phor.  51. 

91V.  van  Wageningen,  op.  cit.  pp.  40  f. 

KDe  Or.  III.  22.83.  93IL  I0-I3-     Cf.  XL  3.91. 

28 


of  feminine  vocal  tones,  unless  another  jest  is  intended,  is  indicated 
by  Rud.  233 : 

Certe  vox  muliebris  amis  tetigit  meas. 

And  Quintilian  admonishes  the  youth  who  is  taking  lessons  from 
a  comic  actor  in  voice-production  not  to  carry  his  precepts  so  far 
as  to  imitate  the  female  falsetto,  the  senile  tremolo,  the  obsequious- 
ness of  the  slave,  the  stuttering  accents  of  intoxication  or  the 
intonations  of  love,  greed,  fear.94 

Where  Donatus  gives  instructions  as  to  the  vocal  expression  with 
which  certain  lines  are  to  be  delivered,  as  in  the  case  of  his  com- 
ments on  gesture,  they  are  almost  painfully  evident  from  the  con- 
text. He  cites  for  instance  irony,95  anger,96  exhaustion,97  amaze- 
ment,98 sympathy,99  pity.100  He  appears  as  the  lineal  ancestor  of 
the  modern  "coach"  of  amateur  theatricals  in  somewhat  naively 
remarking101  that  upon  leaving  Thais  for  two  days,  Phaedria  must 
pronounce  "two  days"  as  if  "two  years"  were  written. 

Another  phase  of  the  delivery  of  the  dialogue  that  deserves 
passing  mention  is  song  and  musical  accompaniment.  Livy's 
anecdote102  of  the  employment  by  Livius  Andronicus  of  a  boy  to 
sing  for  him  while  he  gesticulated  is  almost  universally  accepted  as 
as  exceptional  instance,  prompted  by  the  failing  of  Livius'  voice 
through  age.103  We  are  now  fairly  well  informed  of  the  tripartite 
division  of  the  dialogue  into  canticum  or  song  proper,  recitative, 
and  diverbium  or  spoken  utterance,104  with  the  incidental  accom- 
paniment of  the  tibia.     Though  there  may  be  some  dispute  as  to 

94I.  11. 1-2. 

95Donat.  ad  And.  505,  Eun.  224,  288,  403,  Ad.  187,  395. 

96Ad  And.  194,  301,  Eun.  467,  986,  Hec.  98,  439,  640,  Ad.  101.  Cf.  Ad.  96: 
cum  admiratione  indignantis;  97:  intento  digito  et  infestis  in  Micionem  oculis. 

97Ad  Eun.  1055. 

98Ad  And.  633,  Eun.  233,  451,  Hec.  63,  Ad.  259. 

99Ad  Phor.  145.  100Ad  Ad.  200. 

101Ad  Eun.  187.  102VII.  2.8-10. 

103Cf.  Diom.  491.  23  ff.,  K;  Ribbeck,  Rom.  Trag.  p.  634,  believes  that  this 
was  the  rule,  but  he  is  apparently  alone  in  the  opinion.  Cf.  Bodensteiner 
in  Bursian's  Jahresbericht  CVI,  p.  162  ft".,  who  agrees  with  the  proof  of  van 
Eck,  Quaest.  Seen.  Rom.  (Amsterdam  1892),  that  it  was  an  isolated  instance. 

104We  are  not  even  remotely  concerned  with  metrical  analysis.  For  that 
phase,  with  a  discussion  as  to  the  effect  of  the  various  metrical  systems,  see 
Klotz,  Grundziige  der  altrbmischen  Metrik,  esp.  p.  370  ff.  Cf.  Duff,  A  Lit.  Hist, 
of  Rome,  p.  196.     Note  Donat.  de  Com.  VIII.  9  and  Diom.  491.23  K. 

29 


the  apportionment  of  the  various  classes,  the  general  truth  is 
established.105  The  important  feature  of  this  for  our  purpose  is 
that,  if  the  ancient  tragedy  with  its  music  and  dancing  was  rather 
comparable  to  modern  grand  opera  than  to  drama  proper,  the  song 
and  musical  accompaniment  of  comedy  lend  it  a  strong  flavor  of 
the  opera  bouffe  and  even  of  the  musical  comedy  of  to-day.  In 
Part  II  we  shall  draw  numerous  other  parallels  between  this  style 
of  composition  and  the  plays  of  Plautus.  West,  in  A.  J.  P.  VIII. 
33,  notes  one  of  the  few  comparisons  to  "comic  opera"  that  we 
have  seen.  Fay,  in  the  Introduction  to  his  ed.  of  the  Most.  (§ 
n),  likens  Plautine  drama  to  "an  opera  of  the  early  schools." 

One  feature  of  the  performance  still  remains  to  be  discussed — 
the  "stage-business,"  that  is,  the  movements  of  the  actors  apart 
from  mere  gesticulation  and  dialogue.  Much  of  this  too  will  find 
a  place  in  Part  II,  in  the  treatment  of  special  peculiarities,  but  in 
general  we  note  here  that  the  text  itself  contains  many  indications 
that  are  as  plain  as  printed  stage  directions  regarding  the  move- 
ments being  made  or  about  to  be  made  by  the  characters.  Exam- 
ples of  the  more  significant  follow:  Amph.  308:  Cingitur:  Certe 
expedit  se;  312:  Perii,  pugnos  ponderat.  (Sosia  speaks  aside  of 
Mercury  and  similarly  during  the  succeeding  scene) ;  903  :  Potin 
ut  abstineas  manum?;  955:  Aperiuntur  aedis.  This  motif  is 
commonplace  and  frequent;  958:  Vos  tranquillos  video;  1130: 
quam  valide  tonuit;  As.  39 :  Age,  age,  usque  excrea;  Bac.  668 :  quod 
sic  terram  optuere  ? ;  Cap.  557:  Viden  tu  hunc,  quam  inimico  voltu 
intuitur  ? ;  594 :  Ardent  oculi  ;106  793  :  Hie  homo  pugilatum  incipit ; 
Ep.  609:  illi  caperrat  irons  severitudine ;  Mer.  138:  iam  dudum 
sputosanguinem;  Mil.1324:  Nefle;  Most.  1030:  vocis non habeo 
satis.  (He  must  have  been  shouting);  Ps.  458:  Statum  vide 
hominis,  Callipho,  quam  basilicum;  955:  transvorsus  .  .  . 
ced.it,  quasi  cancer  solet;  Trin.  623  f . :  celeri  gradu  eunt  uterque: 
ille  reprehendit  hunc  priorem  pallio.107 

105For  arguments  as  to  the  divisions  of  the  three  classes,  v.,  besides  Klotz, 
Ritschl,  Parerga  p.  40;  Conradt,  Die  metrische  Komposition  der  Komodien  des 
Terenz  (Berlin  1876);  Biichelerin  Neue  Jahr.  fitr  Phil.  CXLI  (1871),  p.  273  ff.; 
Dziatzko  in  Rhein.  Mus.  XXVI  (1871),  pp.  97-100:  G.  Hermann,  de  Canticis 
in  Romanorum  Fabulis,  Opusc.  I.  290;  which  have  all  been  landmarks  in  the 
discussion.     Cf.  also  Teuffel,  Rom.  Lit.,  §  16.  Sec.  5,  etc. 

106Cf.  Cic.  de  Or.  II.  46.193. 

107Cf.  As.  265,  587,  640,  403,  Bac.  611,  Cap.  637,  Cas.  845  ff.,  Cm.  53  ff., 
Cur.   278,  309,  311,  Ep.   623  ff.,  Men.   828  f.,  910,  Mer.   599  f.,  Mil.   200  ff. 

30 


This  practice  of  indicating  business  in  the  lines,  of  making  the 
play  act,  is  common  to  all  the  older  types  of  drama,  Elizabethan  as 
well  as  classic.  A  single  striking  example  from  Shakespeare  will 
furnish  a  parallel,  in  the  well-known  lines  from  Macbeth: 

The  devil  damn  thee  black,  thou  cream-faced  loon, 

Where  gott'st  thou  that  goose  look?     (V.  3). 
The  modern  playwright  robs   his   lines   of   their  vividness  and 
throws  the  onus  on  the  actor  through  the  medium  of  his  interpo- 
lated direction,  a  custom  which  reaches  its  most  exaggerated  form 
in  the  plays  of  Bernard  Shaw,  as  mentioned  above. 

We  have  now  made  a  perceptible  advance  towards  getting  an 
answer  to  our  original  questions:     "What  manner  of  drama  is 
this?"  and  "How  was  it  done?"     The  comments  of 
Thesis  the  most  eminent  critics  on  the  former  question  have 

left  us  rather  bewildered  by  their  diversity.  Almost 
to  a  man  they  have  taken  Plautus  too  seriously  or  else  have 
arraigned  him  for  not  conforming  to  their  preconceived  code  of 
comedy,  without  questioning  whether  it  were  Plautus'  own  or  not. 
This  has  really  nullified  their  efforts  to  explain  away  the  peculiari- 
ties and  absurdities  of  his  style.  Some  solvent  of  these  difficulties 
is  needed. 

As  to  the  second  question,  we  have  examined  briefly  the  extant 
evidence  regarding  the  actor's  employment  of  gesture  and  business, 
his  delivery  of  the  dialogue,  make-up  and  character  delineation, 
and  found  a  disappointing  paucity,  but  a  general  and  irresistible 
trend  towards  liveliness,  vivacity  and  broad  undiluted  comedy  that 
must  have  been  the  sort  of  dramatic  fare  demanded  by  the  primeval 
appetite  of  the  Plautine  audience.  But  again  we  find  ourselves 
falling  short  of  a  satisfying  answer  to  our  question.  Again,  some 
solvent  is  needed.  As  the  last  resort,  we  turn  to  the  evidence  of  the 
plays  themselves  and  the  unbounded  realm  of  subjective  criticism. 

From  the  earliest  times  gesture  and  business  in  Aristophanes  and 
the  Old  Comedy  were  marked  by  the  riotous  license  of  all  the  media 
of  that  notable  epoch108  of  comedy.     From  the  broad  spirit  of  its 

(quoted  infra,  Part  II),  798-9  (Palaestrio  must  shout  at  Periplecomenus  to 
provoke  such  a  reply),  Most.  265  ff.,  594,  Per.  307  f.,  Ps.  911,  1287,  St.  271, 
288  f.,  Trin.  1099,  True.  276,  476  ff.,  549,  593  f.,  599  ff.,  822.  Cf.  also  Ter. 
Phor.  210-11  and  Moliere's  imitation  in  Les  Fourberies  de  Scapin,  I.  4. 

108Cf.  Sittl,  Gebdrden,  p.  201  and  Warnecke's  citations  from  the  Scholiast 
to  Aristophanes  in  Neue  Jahr.  1910,  p.  592. 

3i 


frank  and  vivid  burlesque  not  even  the  most  stolidly  Teutonic  of 
humorless  critics  ever  thought  of  demanding  a  "picture  of  life." 
But  with  the  abandonment  of  the  purpose  of  political  propaganda, 
the  consequent  disappearance  of  the  chorus  with  its  burlesque 
trappings  (largely  through  motives  of  state  economy),  and  the 
establishment  in  the  New  Comedy  of  a  type  of  dramatic  machinery 
that  had  a  specious  outer  shell  of  reflection  of  characters  and  events 
in  daily  life,  the  critics  instantly  seem  to  demand  the  standard  of 
dramatic  technique  of  Aristotle  and  Freytag  and  condemn  all 
departures  from  this  standard.  In  reality,  we  believe  that  the 
kinship  of  Plautus  with  Aristophanes  is  much  closer  than  has  usually 
been  realized. 

Is,  then,  the  change  from  Old  to  New  Comedy  as  great  as  has 
been  represented?  Does  not  the  change  consist  rather  in  the  outer 
form  and  in  the  ideas  expounded  than  in  the  spirit  of  the  histrion- 
ism  and  mimicry?  And  must  not  the  vigor,  from  what  we  have 
seen,  have  been  intensified  in  Plautus?  LeGrand  alone  seems  to 
have  caught  the  essence  of  this:109  "Que  dire  de  la  mimique? 
D'  apres  les  indications  contenues  dans  le  texte  meme  des  comedies, 
d'  apres  les  commentaires — notamment  ceux  de  Donat,  d'apres  les 
monuments  figures- — en  particulier  les  images  des  manuscrits,  elle 
devait  etre  en  general  tres  vive,  souvent  trop  vive  pour  le  gout  des 
modernes.  .  .  .  Et  puis,  ils  s'addressaient  a  des  spectateurs 
meridionaux,  coutumiers  dans  la  vie  quotidienne  d'une  gesticula- 
tion plus  animee  que  la  notre."  And  this  is  said  as  a  combined 
estimate  of  New  Comedy  and  palliatae. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  advance  a  definite  thesis,  that  shall 
gather  up  the  random  threads  of  argument  and  suggestion  scat- 
tered through  the  foregoing  pages  and  shall,  we  hope,  provide  a 
conclusive  and  final  answer  to  both  of  our  original  questions.  If 
we  can  establish :  that  our  author's  sole  aim  was  to  feed  the  popular 
hunger  for  amusement ;  that,  while  after  leaving  much  of  his  Greek 
originals  practically  untouched,  he  considered  them  in  effect  but  a 
medium  for  the  provocation  of  laughter,  but  a  vessel  into  which  to 
pour  a  highly  seasoned  brew  of  fun ;  that  to  this  end  his  actors  went 
before  the  public,  potentially  speaking  slap-stick  in  hand,  equipped 
by  nature  with  liveliness  of  grimace  and  gesture  and  prepared  to 
act  with  verve,  unction  and  an  abandon  of  dash  and  vigor  that 
would  produce  a  riot  of  merriment ;  that  his  dramatic  machinery  is 

10*Daos,  p.  617. 

32 


hopelessly  crippled  and  that  his  evident  intentions  and  effects  are 
hopelessly  lost  unless  interpreted  in  this  spirit :  then  we  relegate 
Plautine  drama  to  a  low  plane  of  broad  farce,  where  verisimilitude 
to  life  becomes  wholly  unnecessary  because  undesirable ;  where  the 
canons  of  dramatic  art  become  inoperative ;  where,  contrary  to 
what  Korting  says,  we  are  not  asked  to  believe  that  "everything  is 
happening  in  a  perfectly  natural  manner";  where  the  poet  may 
stick  at  nothing  provided  the  laugh  be  forthcoming ;  where  all  the 
apparently  absurd  conventions  of  palliatae  cease  to  be  absurd, 
vanish  into  thin  air  and  become  unamenable  to  literary  criticism, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  all  only  part  of  the  laugh-compelling  scheme. 
This  is  the  solvent  that  we  propose.  To  establish  this,  let  us  pro- 
ceed to  an  examination  of  the  internal  mechanism  of  the  plays. 


33 


PART   II 

AN  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  DRAMATIC  VALUES  IN  PLA  UTUS 

The  salient  features  that  characterize  the  plays  of  Plautus 
include  both  his  consciously  employed  means  of  producing  his 
comic  effects,  and  the  peculiarities  and  abnormalities  that  evidence 
his  attitude  of  mind  in  writing  them.  We  should  make  bold  to 
catalogue  them  as  follows: 

I.  Machinery  characteristic  of  the  lower  types  of  modern  drama 
— farce,  low  comedy,  musical  comedy,  burlesque  shows,  vau'deville, 
and  the  like. 

A.  Devices  self-evident  from  the  text, 
i.     Bombast  and  mock-heroics. 

2 .  Horse-play  and  slap-sticks . 

3.  Burlesque,    farce    and    extravagance    of    situation    and 
dialogue. 

a.  True  burlesque. 

b.  True  farce. 

c.  Extravagances  obviously  unnatural  and    merely    for 
the  sake  of  fun. 

B.  Devices  absurd  and  inexplicable  unless  interpreted  in  a 
broad  farcical  spirit. 

1.  The  running  slave. 

2 .  Wilful  blindness. 

3.  Adventitious  entrance. 

II.     Evidences  of  loose  composition  which  prove  a  disregard  of 
technique  and  hence  indicate  that  entertainment  was  the  sole  aim. 

A.  Solo  speeches  and  passages. 

1.  Asides  and  soliloquies. 

2 .  Lengthy  monodies,  monologues  and  episodical  specialties. 
Direct  address  of  the  audience. 

B.  Inconsistencies  and  carelessness  of  composition. 
Pointless  badinage  and  padded  scenes. 


Inconsistencies  of  character  and  situation. 
Looseness  of  dramatic  construction. 
Roman  admixture  and  topical  allusions. 
Jokes  on  the  dramatic  machinery. 
Use  of  stock  plots  and  characters. 

34 


Let  us  illustrate  these  points  by  typical  passages  and  endeavor 
to  insert  such  stage-directions  as  would  indicate  how  the  most 
telling  effects  could  be  produced  and  hence  aid  the  reader  in  visual- 
izing the  actual  performance. 

I 

Machinery  Characteristic  of  the  Lower  Types  of  Modern 

Drama 

A .     Devices  self-evident  from  the  text. 
i.     Bombast  and  mock-heroics. 

It  is  a  little  difficult  to  sublimate  this  entirely  from  burlesque, 
but  its  true  nature  is  instanced  by  the  opening  lines  of  the  Miles, 
where  the  vainglorious  Pyrgopolinices,  with  many  a  sweep  and 
strut,  addresses  his  attendants,  who  are  probably  staggering  under 
the  weight  of  an  enormous  shield : 

"Have  a  care  that  the  effulgence  of  my  shield  be  brighter  than 
e'er  the  sun's  rays  in  a  cloudless  sky:  when  the  time  for  action 
comes  and  the  battle's  on,  I  intend  it  shall  dazzle  the  eyesight  o' 
m'  foes.  {Patting  his  sword).  Verily  I  would  condole  with  this  m' 
sword,  lest  he  lament  and  be  cast  down  in  spirit,  forasmuch  as  now 
full  long  hath  he  hung  idle  by  m'  side,  thirsting,  poor  lad,  to  meet 
his  fellow  'mongst  the  foe,"  and  so  on. 

In  line  with  this,  a  simulation  of  the  military  is  a  favorite 
device.  So  we  find  Pseudolus  addressing  the  audience  in  ringing 
blustering  tones  and  with  grandiose  'gesture  (Ps.  584  ff.) : 

"It  now  becomes  my  aim  today  to  lay  siege  to  this  town  and 
capture  it."  (Ballio  the  procurer  is  the  town).  "I  shall  hurl  all 
my  legions  against  it.  If  I  take  it,  j  .  .  .  good  luck  to  you, 
my  citizens,  for  part  of  the  booty  shall  be  yours." 

This  finds  a  close  counterpart  in  jthe  Mil.  219  ff.,  a  passage 
which  West1  thinks  was  deliberately  inserted  to  rouse  the  populace 
into  demanding  that  Scipio  be  at  once  despatched  to  Africa. 

Periplecomenus  is  urging  Palaestrio  to  find  a  stratagem. 
Actually  he  probably  addresses  the  pit : 

"Don't  you  see  that  the  enemy  are  upon  you  and  investing  your 
rear?  Call  a  council  of  war,  reach  out  for  stores  and  reinforce- 
ments in  this  crisis:  haste,  haste,  no  time  to  waste!  Make  a 
detour  through  some  pass,  forestall  your  foes,  beleaguer  them, 
protect  our  troops !     Cut  off  the  enemy's  base  of  supplies !"  etc. 

*A.  J.  P.  VIII.  15  ff. 

35 


) 


Whether  this  passage  had  an  ulterior  purpose  or  not,  the  motif 
is  frequent.2  So  we  find  ChrysalusinSac.  925  ff.  holding  thestage 
for  an  entire  scene  with  an  elaborate  comparison  of  himself  to 
Ulysses,  the  brains  of  the  Greek  host,  overcoming  his  master 
Nicobulus  who  represents  Priam. 

In  general  the  mocking  assumption  of  an  heroic  attitude  recurs 
with  sufficient  frequency  to  stamp  it  as  a  staple  of  comic  effect. 
Many  passages  would  become  tiresome  and  meaningless  instead  of 
amusing  unless  so  interpreted.  The  soliloquy  of  Mnesilochus  in 
Bac.  500  ff.  could  be  made  interesting  only  by  turgid  ranting.' 
Similarly  in  Bac.  530  ff.  and  612  ff.3 
-2 .     Horse-play  and  slap-sticks . 

By  this  we  mean  what  can  in  nowise  be  so  clearly  defined  as  by 
"rough-house."  For  instance,  the  turbulent  Euclio  in  Aul. 
delivers  bastings  impartially  to  various  dramatis  personae  and  as  a 
climax  drives  the  cooks  and  music-girl  pell-mell  out  of  the  house, 
doubtless  accompanied  by  deafening  howling  and  clatter  (415  ff.). 
Similarly  in  the  Cas.  (875  ff.)  Chalinus  routs  Olympio  and  the 
lecherous  Lysidamus.  We  may  well  imagine  that  such  scenes  were 
preceded  as  well  as  accompanied  by  a  fearful  racket  within  (a 
familiar  device  of  our  low  comedy  and  extravaganza),  the  effect 
probably  heightened  by  tempestuous  melodrama  on  the  tibiae, 
as  both  the  scenes  cited  are  in  canticum. 
j^,  In  the  Men.  we  are  treated  to  a  free  fight,  in  which  the  valiant 
/  Messenio  routs  the  lorarii  by  vigorous  punches,  while  Menaechmus 
plants  his  fist  in  one  antagonist's  eye  {Men.  ion  ff.) : 

(Menaechmus  of  Epidamnus  is  seized  by  lorarii;  as  he  struggles, 
Messenio,  slave  of  Menaechmus  Sosicles,  rushes  into  the  fray  to 
his  rescue).  "MES.  I  say!  Gouge  out  that  fellow's  eye,  the  one 
that's  got  you  by  the  shoulder,  master.  Now  as  for  these  rotters, 
I'll  plant  a  crop  of  fists  on  their  faces.  {Lays  about.)  By  Heaven, 
you'll  be  everlastingly  sorry  for  the  day  you  tried  to  carry  my 
master  off.     Let  go ! 

MEN.     {Joining  in  with  a  will.)     I've  got  this  fellow  by  the  eye ! 

2Cf.  ^5.  554  ff.,  Bac.  710  ff.,  Cap.  159  ff.  Cur.  572  ff.,  Ep.  437  ff.,  Men.  134  ff., 
Per.  753  ff.,  Ps.  761  ff.,  Trin.  718  ff.,  etc. 

3For  further  examples  of  bombast  and  mock-heroics  v.  As.  405-6,  Bac.  792  f., 
842  ff.,  Cis.  640  ff.,  Cur.  96  ff.  439  ff.,  Ep.  181  ff.  (in  similar  vein  most  of  the 
soliloquies  of  the  name  part),  Mer.  469  ff.,  601  ff.,  830  ff.,  Mil.  459  ff.,  486  ff., 
947  ff.,  Per.  251  ff.,  Poen.  470  ff.,  1294  ff.,  Ps.  1063  f.,  Truce.  482  ff.,  602  ff. 

36 


MES.  Bore  it  out!  A  hole's  good  enough  for  his  face!  You 
villians,  you  thieves,  you  robbers!  (General  melee.  Lorarii 
weaken.) 

LOR.     We're  done  for!     Oh  Lord,  please! 

MES.     Let  go  then! 

MEN.  What  right  had  you  to  lay  hands  on  me ?  Give  them  a 
good  beating  up !  (Lorarii  break  and  scatter  wildly  under  the  fero- 
cious onslaught.) 

MES.  Come,  clear  out!  To  the  devil  with  you  all!  That  for 
you\  (Strikes.)  You're  the  last;  here's  your  reward!  (Strikes 
again.)" 

The  lines  themselves  are  sufficiently  graphic  and  need  but  little 
annotation.  Other  pugilistic  activities  crop  up  at  not  infrequent 
intervals  in  the  text,4  and  in  Ps.  135  ff.  Ballio  generously  plies  the 
whip.  In  the  lacuna  of  the  Amph.  after  line  1034,  Mercury  proba- 
bly bestows  a  drenching  on  Amphitruo5.  In  As.  III.  3,  especially 
697  ff.,  Libanus  makes  his  master  Argyrippus  "play  horsey"  with 
him,  doubtless  with  indelicate  buffonery.  With  invariable  energy, 
even  so  simple  a  matter  as  knocking  on  doors  is  made  the  excuse 
for  raising  a  violent  disturbance,  as  in  Amph.  1019  f.  and  1025: 
Paene  effregisti,  fatue,  foribus  cardines.6  And  this  idea  is  actually 
parodied  in  As.  384  ff.  No,  Plautus  did  not  allow  his  public  to 
languish  for  want  of  noise. 

3.     Burlesque,    farce    and    extravagance    of    situation    and 
dialogue. 

Under  this  head  we  include  such  conscious  strivings  for  comic 
effect  as  are  frankly  and  plainly  exaggerated  and  hyper-natural. 

a.     True  burlesque. 

This  is  in  effect  pure  parody,  cartooning.  Patent  burlesque  of 
tragedy  appears  in  Trin.  820  ff.     (Charmides  returns  from  abroad.) 

"CHAR.  To  Neptune,  ruler  of  the  deep,  and  puissant  brother 
unto  Jove  and  Nereus,  do  I  in  joy  and  gladness  cry  my  praises  and 
gratefully  proclaim  my  gratitude;  and  to  the  briny  waves,  who 
held  me  in  their  power,  yea,  even  my  chattels  and  my  very  life, 
and  from  their  realms  restored  me  to  the  city  of  my  birth,"  etc.,  etc. 

4V.  Amph.  370  ff.,  As.  431,  Cas.  404  ff.,  Cur.  192  ff.,  624  ff.,  Mil.  1394  ff., 
Mos.  1  ff.,  Per.  809  ff.,  Poen.  382  ff.,  Rud.  706  ff. 

5V.  Frag.  IV,  G.  &  S.,  ap.  Non.  p.  543. 

6Cf.  Bac.  581  ff.,  11 19,  Cap.  830  ff.,  Most.  898  ff.,  Rud.  414,  St.  308  ff., 
True.  254  ff. 

37 


To  tickle  the  ears  of  the  groundlings,  this  must  have  been  delivered 
in  grandiloquent  mimicry  with  all  the  paraphernalia  of  the  tragic 
style.     Horace  notes  a  kindred  manifestation  of  this  tendency  (to 
which  he  himself  is  pleasingly  addicted),  in  Ep.  II.  3.93  f. : 
Interdum  tamen  et  vocem  comoedia  tollit 
Iratusque  Chremes  tumido  delitigat  ore. 

Tragic  burlesque  is  again  beautifully  exemplified  in  Ps.  702  ff. 
The  versatile  Pseudolus  after  a  significant  aside :  "I'll  address  the 
fellow  in  high-sounding  words,"  says  to  his  master  Calidorus: 

"Hail!  Hail!  Thee,  thee,  0  mighty  ruler,  thee  do  I  beseech  who 
art  lord  over  Pseudolus.  Thee  do  I  seek  that  thou  mayst  obtain 
thrice  three  times  triple  delights  in  three  various  ways,  joys  earned 
by  three  tricks  and  three  tricksters,  cunningly  won  by  treachery, 
fraud  and  villainy,  which  in  this  little  sealed  missive  have  I  but 
erstwhile  brought  to  thee. 

CHAR.     The  rascal's  spouting  like  a  tragedian." 

When  Sosia,  in  the  first  scene  of  Amph.  (203  ff.),  turgidly 
des:ribes  the  battle  between  the  Thebans  and  Teleboans,  he  is 
parodying  the  Messenger  of  tragedy.  Another  echo  from  tragedy 
is  heard  at  the  end  of  the  play,  when  Jupiter  appears  in  the  role  of 
deus  ex  machina.7 

Burlesque  of  character  and  calling  puts  in  an  occasional  appear- 
ance. The  recreant  Sosia  in  Amph.  958  ff.  mimics  the  dutiful 
slave.  As.  259  ff.  contains  an  ironical  treatment  of  augury,  while 
in  751  ff .  the  poet  has  his  satirical  fling  at  the  legal  profession. 

b.     True  farce. 

This  is  of  course  the  comedy  of  situation  and  finds  its  mainstay 
in  mistaken  identity.  The  Men.  and  Amph.  with  their  doubles 
are  farce-comedies  proper,  but  the  element  of  farce  forms  the  motive 
power  of  nearly  all  the  plots;  for  example,  the  shuffling-up  of 
Acropolistis,  Telestis  and  the  fidicina  in  Ep.,  the  quarrel  between 
Mnesilochus  and  Pistoclerus  in  Bac.  resulting  from  the  former's 
belief  that  his  friend  had  stolen  his  sweetheart,  the  exchange  of 
names  between  Tyndarus  and  Philocrates  in  Cap.,  the  entrapping 
of  Demaenetus  with  the  meretrix  at  the  denouement  of  As.,  etc., 

7Cf.  also  Bac.  925  ff.,  Per.  251  ff.,  Men.  409  ff.  (v.  supra,  Part  I,  §  1,  s.  v. 
Festus,  Brix).  On  Bac.  933,  v.  Ribbeck,  Scaenicae  Romanorum  Poesis 
Fragmenta,  on  Enn.,  frag.  Androm.  81;  Kiessling,  A nalecta  Plautina,!.  14  f. ; 
Ostermayer,  De  historia  fabulari  in  comoediis  Plautinis,  p.  9.  On  Men.  808 
ff.,  v.  Kiessling,  II.  9. 

38 


etc.  It  is  understood,  we  presume,  that  the  modern  farce  occupies 
no  exalted  position  in  the  comic  scale,  is  distinguished  by  the 
grotesquerie  of  its  characters,  incidents  and  dialogue,  and  is  indul- 
gently permitted  to  stray  far  from  the  paths  of  realism.  Even  in 
Shakespearian  farce,  note  the  exaggerated  antics  of  the  two 
Dromios  in  "The  Comedy  of  Errors."  It  is  significant  then  that 
farce  is  a  staple  of  our  plays. 

The  farcical  element  is  strikingly  exemplified  in  Amph.  365-462, 
where  Mercury  persuades  Sosia  that  he  is  not  himself.  Impersona- 
tion  and  assumption  of  a  role  is  another  noteworthy  and  frequent 
medium  of  plot  motivation.  In  As.  407  ff.  Leonida  tries  to  palm 
himself  off  as  the  atriensis.  Note  the  violent  efforts  of  the  two 
slaves  to  wheedle  the  cunning  ass-dealer  (449  ff.).  In  Cas.  815  ff. 
Chalinus  enters  disguised  as  the  blushing  bride.  In  Men.  828  ff.  \J 
Menaechmus  Sosicles  pretends  madness  in  a  clever  scene  of 
uproarious  humor.7  In  the  Mil.  (411  ff.)  Philocomasium  needs 
only  to  change  clothing  to  appear  in  the  role  of  her  own  hypotheti- 
cal twin  sister,  and  in  874  ff.  and  12 16  ff.  the  meretrix  pla^rs  matrona. 
Sagaristio  and  the  daughter  of  the  leno  impersonate  Persians  (Per. 
549  ff.),  Collabiscus  becomes  a  Spartan  (Poen.  578  ff.),  Simia  as 
Harpax  gets  Ballio's  money  (Ps.  905  ff.),  the  sycophant  is  garbed 
as  messenger  (Trin.  843  ff.),  Phronesium  elaborately  pretends  to  be 
a  mother  {True.  499  ff .) .  A  swindle  is  almost  invariably  the  object 
in  view.  But  we  have  said  enough  on  this  score:  no  one  who 
knows  the  plays  at  all  can  fail  to  recognize  the  predominance  of 
farce.  Compare  on  the  modern  stage  the  sudden  appearance  of 
"the  long-lost  cousin  from  Chicago." 

c.     Extravagances  obviously  unnatural  and  merely  for  the  sake 
of  fun. 

This  group  of  course  often  contains  marked  features  of  burlesque 
and  farce,  and  hence  shows  a  close  kinship  with  the  foregoing. 

The  extravagance  of  the  love-sick  swain  is  a  fruitful  source  of- 
this  species  of  caricature.  The  ridiculous  Calidorus,  always  wear- 
ing his  heart  on  his  sleeve,  rolls  his  eyes,  brushes  away  a  tear  and 
says  (Ps.  38  ff.) :  "But  for  a  short  space  have  I  been  e'en  as  a  lily 
of  the  field.  Suddenly  sprang  I  up,  as  suddenly  I  withered."  The 
irreverent  Pseudolus  replies:  "Oh,  shut  up  while  I  read  the  letter 
over."  Calidorus  finds  his  counterpart  in  Phaedromus  of  the  Cur., 
who,  accompanied  by  his  slave,  approaches  milady's  abode  (Cur. 
10  ff.): 

39 


"PH.  (In  languishing  accents,  with  eyes  cast  upward) :  Shall  I 
not  take  sweets  to  the  sweet:  what  is  culled  by  the  toil  of  the 
busy  bees  to  my  own  little  honey?  .  .  .  (They  advance  to 
milady's  doorway  which  he  sprinkles  with  wine,  88  ff.):  Come, 
drink,  ye  portals  of  pleasure,  quaff  and  deign  to  be  propitious 
unto  me. 

PALINURUS  SER.  (Addressing  the  door  with  mimicry  of 
Phaedromus'  airs.)  Do  you  want  some  olives  or  sweetmeats  or 
capers  ? 

PH.  (Continuing.)  Arouse  your  portress;  hither  send  her 
unto  me.     (Lavishes  the  wine.) 

PAL.  (In  great  alarm,  grasping  his  arm.)  You're  spilling  the 
wine!     What's  got  hold  of  you? 

PH.  Unhand  me!  (Gently  shakes  himself  loose.)  Lo!  The 
temple  of  joys  untold  is  opening.  Did  not  the  hinge  creak?  Tis 
charming ! 

PAL.  (Turning  aside  in  disgust.)  Why  don't  you  give  it  a 
kiss?" 

In  each  case  the  impertinent  slave  provides  the  foil.  When  the 
lovers  succeed  in  meeting,  they  are  interlocked  in  embrace  from 
172  to  192,  probably  invested  with  no  small  amount  of  suggestive 
"business."  This  would  doubtless  hardly  be  tolerated  by  the 
"censor"  today.  Another  variety  of  lover's  extravagance  is  the 
lavishing  of  terms  of  endearment,  as  we  find  in  Cas.  134  ff  .8 

When  this  feature  of  "extravagance"  enters  the  situation  instead 
of  the  dialogue,  we  have  episodes  such  as  the  final  scene  of  the  Ps., 
where  the  name  character  is  irrelevantly  introduced  (1246)  in  a 
state  of  intoxication  which,  with  copious  belching  in  Simo's  face, 
culminates  in  a  rebellion  of  the  overloaded  stomach  (1294).  We 
can  scarcely  doubt  that  such  business  was  carried  out  in  ultra- 
graphic  detail  and  rewarded  by  copious  guffaws  from  the  populace. 
In  sharp  contrast  to  this,  the  drunkenness  of  Callidamates  in  Most. 
313  ff.  is  depicted  with  unusual  artistry,  but  still  from  the  very 
nature  of  such  a  scene  it  may  be  labeled  "extravagant." 

Manifestation  of  violent  anger  is  another  source  of  exaggerated 
stage  business.  Ep.  512  ff.  should  be  interpreted  somewhat  as 
follows : 

8Cf.  further  As.  606  ff.,  Cur.  147  ff.,  Most.  233  ff.,  Poen.  275  ff.  and  passim, 
True.  434  ff. 

40 


"(The  deluded  Periphanes  has  just  discovered  that  the  fidicina  is  an 
impostor  and  not  his  daughter.)  FID.  (Sweetly.)  Do  you  want 
me  for  anything  else  ? 

PER.  (Stamping  foot  and  shaking  fists  in  a  passion.)  The  foul 
fiend  take  you  to  utter  perdition !     Clear  out,  and  quickly  too ! 

FID.     (In  alarm.)     Won't  you  give  me  back  my  harp ? 

PER.  Nor  harp  nor  pipes!  So  hurry  up  and  get  out  of  here, 
if  you  know  what's  good  for  you! 

FID.  (Stamping  her  foot  in  tearful  rage.)  I'll  go,  but  you'll 
have  to  give  them  back  later  just  the  same  and  it  will  be  all  the 
worse  for  you. 

PER.     (Striding  up  and  down  in  wildest  anger.)     What!     . 
shall  I  let  her  go  unpunished?     Nay,  even  if  I  have  to  lose  as  much 
again,  I'll  lose  it  rather  than  let  myself  be  mocked  and  despoiled 
with  impunity!"  and  so  on.9 

Other  random  scenes  that  may  be  classed  as  "extravagant"  are 
found  in  Strobilus'  cartoon  of  Euclio  (Aul.  300  ff.),  Demipho's 
discovery  in  the  distance  of  a  mythical  bidder  for  the  girl  (Mer.  434 
ff.),  Charinus'  playing  "horsey"  and  taking  a  trip  in  his  imaginary 
car  (Mer.  930  ff.),  and  the  loud  "boo-hoo"  to  which  Philocomasium 
gives  vent  (Mil.  132 1  ff.).  These  all  might  be  classed  under  either 
"farce"  or  "burlesque,"  but  they  seem  to  come  more  exactly  under 
the  kindred  head  of  "extravagance." 

A  familiar  figure  in  modern  farce-comedy  is  the  comic  conspirator 
with  finger  on  lip,  tiptoeing  round  in  fear  of  listeners.  He  finds 
his  prototype  in  Trin.  (146  ff.) : 

"(Callicles  and  Megaronides  converse.) 

CAL.  (In  a  mysterious  whisper.)  Look  around  a  bit  and 
make  sure  there's  nobody  spying  on  us — and  please  look  around 
every  few  seconds.  (They  pause  and  peer  in  every  direction,  perhaps 
creeping  round  on  tiptoe.) 

MEG.     Now,  I  am  all  ears. 

CAL.  When  you're  through,  I'll  talk.  (Pauses  and  nods.) 
Just  before  Charmides  went  abroad,  he  showed  me  a  treasure, 
(stops  and  looks  over  his  shoulders)  in  his  house  here,  in  one  of  the 
rooms.  (Starts,  as  if  at  a  noise.)  Look  around!  (They  repeat 
the  search  and  return  again.) 

9Cf.  Ep.  580  ff.  Cf.  also  "bombast,"  supra  A.  1,  and  "copious  abuse" 
infra,  A.  3.  c.  Cf.  also  wall-painting  labeled  "Der  erzurnte  Hausherr,"  in 
Baumeister,  Denkmaler  des  klassischen  Altertums,  s.  v.  Lustspiel. 

41 


MEG.     There's  nobody."10 

Another  old  stage  friend  is  the  detected  plotter  trying  to  lie  out 
of  an  embarrassing  situation.  He  is  lineally  descended  from 
Tranio  in  the  Most.  Tranio  has  just  induced  his  master  Theopro- 
pides  to  pay  forty  minae  to  the  money-lender  on  the  pretext  that 
Theopropides'  son  Philolaches  has  bought  a  house  (659  ff .) : 

"TH.     In  what  neighborhood  did  my  son  buy  this  house? 

TR.  (Aside  to  audience  in  comic  despair,  with  appropriate 
gesture.)      See  there  now !     I ' m  a  goner ! 

TH.     (Impatiently.)     Will  you  answer  my  question? 

TR.  Oh  yes,  but  (Stammering  and  displaying  symptoms  of  acute 
embarrassment)  I — I'm  trying  to  think  of  the  owner's  name. 
(Groans.) 

TH.     Well,  hurry  up  and  remember  it! 

TR.  (Rapidly,  aside.)  I  can't  see  anything  better  to  do  than 
tell  him  his  son  bought  the  house  of  our  next-door  neighbor  here. 
(With  a  shrug.)  Thunder,  I've  heard  that  a  steaming  lie  is  the  best 
kind.  (Mock-heroically.)  'Tis  the  will  of  the  gods,  my  mind's 
made  up. 

TH.  (Who  has  been  frowning  and  stamping  in  impatience.) 
Well,  well,  well!     Haven't  you  thought  of  it  yet? 

TR.  (Aside.)  Curses  on  him!  .  .  .  (Finally  turning  and 
bursting  out  suddenly.)  It's  our  next-door  neighbor  here — your 
son  bought  the  house  from  him.  (He  sees  that  the  lie  goes  and  sighs 
with  relief.)"11 

Another  variation  on  this  theme  is  the  futile  effort  of  the  plotter 
to  get  rid  of  a  character  armed  with  incriminating  evidence. 
Again  we  quote  Most.  (573  ff.),  where  Tranio  is  conversing  with 
Theopropides.  The  money-lender  from  whom  young  Philolaches 
has  borrowed  appears  on  the  other  side  of  the  stage.  Tranio  espies 
him.  He  must  keep  him  away  from  the  old  man.  With  a 
hurried  excuse  he  flies  across  to  meet  Misargyrides. 

"TR.  (Taking  Misargyrides'  arm  and  attempting  to  steer  him  off- 
stage.)    I  was  never  so  glad  to  see  a  man  in  my  life. 

MIS.     (Suspiciously,  holding  back.)     What's  the  matter? 

TR.  (Confidentially.)  Just  step  this  way.  (Looks  back  appre- 
hensively at  Theopropides,  who  is  regarding  them  stispiciously.) 


10Cf.  Mil.  596  ff.,  Most.  454  ff.,  Trin.  517  ff. 
"Cf.  Mer.  748  ff.,  Men.  607  ff. 

42 


MIS.    (In  a  loud  and  offensive  voice.)   Won't  my  interest  be  paid  ? 

TR.     I  know  you  have  a  good  voice ;  don't  shout  so  loud. 

MIS.     (Louder.)     Hang  it,  but  I  will  shout!     .     .     . 

TR.  (Groans  and  glances  over  shoulder  again.)  Run  along  home, 
there's  a  good  fellow.     (Urges  him  toward  exit.)'1,  etc. 

Tranio  has  a  chance  for  very  lively  business :  a  sickly  smile  for 
the  usurer,  lightning  glances  of  apprehension  towards  Theopro- 
pides,  with  an  occasional  intimate  groan  aside  to  the  audience. 
Other  farcical  scenes  of  the  many  that  may  be  cited  as  calling  for 
particularly  vivacious  business  and  gesture  are,  e.  g.,  Cas.  621  ff., 
where  Pardalisca  befools  Lysidamus  by  timely  fainting,  Rud.  414  ff ., 
where  Sceparnio  flirts  with  Ampelisca,  and  the  quarrel  scene,  Rud. 
485  ff.12 

The  last  four  passages  quoted  in  translation  are  by  no  means 
lacking  in  artistic  humor  and  a  measure  of  reality,  but  they  imply 
a  pronounced  heightening  of  the  actions  and  emotions  of  everyday 
life  and  lose  their  humor  unless  presented  in  the  broad  spirit  that 
stamps  them  as  belonging  to  the  plane  of  farce.  We  now  pass  on 
to  motives  where  the  dialogue  aims  at  effects  manifestly  unnatural 
and  where  verisimilitude  is  sacrificed  to  the  joke,  as  we  have  seen 
it  is  in  the  employment  of  "bombast,"  "true  burlesque,"  etc. 

The  first  of  these  motives  is  a  stream  of  copious  abuse,  as  in  Per. 
406  ff .,  where  Toxilus  servos  and  Dordalus  leno  exchange  Rabelaisian 
compliments. 

"TOX.  (Hopping  about  with  rabid  gestures.)  You  filthy  pimp, 
you  mud-heap,  you  common  dung-hill,  you  besmirched,  corrupt, 
law-breaking  decoy,  you  public  sewer,  .  _  .  .  robber,  mobber, 
jobber,     .     .     .      ! 

DOR.  (Who  has  been  dancing  around  in  fury,  shaking  his  fist 
until  exhausted  by  his  paroxysms .)  Wait — till — (Puffing) — I — get 
— my  breath — I'll — answer  you!  You  dregs  of  the  rabble,  you 
slave-brothel,  you  'white-slave'  freer,  you  sweat-of-the-lash,  you 
chain  gang,  you  king  of  the  treadmill,  .  .  .  you  eat-away,  steal- 
away  run-away.     .     .     .      !"  etc.13 

Perhaps  we  have  here  the  forerunner  of  the  shrewish  wife  in 
modern  vaudeville,  who  administers  to  her  shrinking  consort  a 

12Cf.  further  Most.  265  ff.,  456  ff.  and  note  Donat.  ad  Phor.  210-n:  hie 
locus  magis  actoris  quam  lectoris  est. 

13Cf.  Most.  38  ff.,  Poen.  1309  ff.  Cf.  also  "Lavishing  of  terms  of  endear- 
ment," supra,  A.  3.  c. 

43 


rapid-fire  tongue-lashing.  Another  phase  of  this  profuse  riot  of 
words  appears  in  the  formidable  Persian  name  that  Sagaristio, 
disguised  as  a  Persian,  adopts  in  the  Per.  (700  ff.) : 

"DORDALUS.     What's  your  name? 

SAG.  Listen  then,  and  you  shall  hear:  False-speaker-us  Girl- 
seller-son  Much-o'-nothing-talk-son  Money-gouge-out-son  Talk- 
up-to  you-son  Coin-wheedle-out-son  What-I-once-get-son  Never- 
give-up-son :     there  you  are ! 

DOR.  (With  staring  eyes  and  gasping  breath.)  Ye  Gods!  That's 
a  variegated  name  of  yours ! 

SAG.  (With  a  superior  wave  of  the  hand.)  It's  the  Persian 
fashion." 

The  second  point  in  this  category  is  own  cousin  to  the  above. 
We  should  label  it  persistent  interruption  and  repetition.  An 
excellent  instance  is  Trin.  582  ff.,  when  Stasimus,  Lesbonicus  and 
Phil  to  have  just  hatched  a  plot.     Philto  departs. 

"LES.  (To  Stasimus.)  You  attend  to  my  instructions.  I'll  be 
there  presently.     Tell  Callicles  to  meet  me. 

ST.     Now  you  just  clear  out !     (Pushes  him  after  Philto.) 

LES.  (Calls  out  as  he  is  being  shoved  away.)  Tell  him  to  see 
what  has  to  be  done  about  the  dowry. 

ST.     Clear  out ! 

LES.  (Raising  his  voice.)  For  I'm  determined  not  to  marry  her 
off  without  a  dowry. 

ST.     Won't  you  clear  out? 

LES.    (Still  louder.)  And  I  won't  let  her  suffer  harm  by  reason. — 

ST.     Get  out,  I  say ! 

LES.     (Shouts.) — of  my  carelessness. 

ST.     Clear  out ! 

LES.     It  seems  right  that  my  own  sins — 

ST.     Clear  out ! 

LES.- — should  affect  me  alone. 

ST.     Clear  out ! 

LES.  (Mock  heroically.)  Oh  father,  shall  I  ever  behold  you 
again  ? 

ST.  Out,  out,  out!  (With  a  final  shove.)  (Exit  Lesbonicus.) 
At  last,  I've  got  him  away !     (Breathes  hard.)" 

The  fun,  if  fun  there  be,  lies  in  the  hammer-like  repetition  of 
"I  modo,"  a  sort  of  verbal  buffoonery.  A  clever  actor  could  din 
this  with  telling  effect.     The  device  is  employed  several  times. 

44 


In  Most.  974  ff .  the  word  is  aio,  in  Per.  482  ff.  credo,  in  Poen.  73 1  ff. 
quippini,  in  Ps.  484  ff.  vat  yap,  in  Rud.  12 12  ff.  licet  and  1269  ff. 
censeo.     The  last  two  examples  are  the  lengthiest.14 

The  third  of  these  motives  is  the  introduction  of  clearly  unnat- 
ural dialogue,  wholly  incidental  and  foreign  to  the  action,  for  the 
sake  of  lugging  in  a  joke.  The  As.  (38  ff.)  yields  the  following 
conversation  between  Demaenetus  senex  and  his  slave  Libanus: 

"LI.  By  all  that's  holy,  as  a  favor  to  me,  spit  out  the  words  you 
have  uttered. 

DE.     All  right,  I'll  be  glad  to  oblige  you.     {Coughs.) 

LI.     Now,  now,  get  it  right  up!     (Pats  him  on  the  back.) 

DE.     More?     {Coughs.) 

LI.  Gad,  yes,  please!  Right  from  the  bottom  of  your  throat: 
more  still !     (Pats.) 

DE.     Well,  how  far  down  then? 

LI.     (Unguardedly.)     Down  to  Hades  is  my  wish ! 

DE.     I  say,  look  out  for  trouble! 

LI.     (Diplomatically.)     For  your  wife,  I  mean,  not  for  you. 

DE.  For  that  speech  I  bestow  upon  you  freedom  from  punish- 
ment."15 

The  childish  bandying  of  words  in  True.  858  ff.  is  egregiously 
tiresome  in  the  reading,  but  in  action  could  have  been  made  to 
produce  a  modicum  of  amusement  if  presented  in  the  broad  bur- 
lesque spirit  that  we  believe  was  almost  invariably  employed. 
This  gives  us  a  clue  to  the  next  topic. 

B.     Devices  absurd  and  inexplicable  unless  interpreted  in  a  broad  J 
farcical  spirit. 

This  includes  peculiarities  that  have  usually  been  commented 
on  as  weaknesses  or  conventions,  or  else  been  given  up  as  hopeless 
incongruities,  but  which  we  hope  to  prove  also  yield  their  quota  of 
amusement  if  clownishly  performed.  The  foremost  of  these  is  the 
famous 

1 .     Running  Slave  or  Parasite. 

We  all  know  him :  rushing  madly  cross  stage  at  top-speed  (if  we 
take  the  literal  word  of  the  text  for  it),  with  girded  loins,  in  search 
of  somebody  right  under  his  nose,  the  while  unburdening  himself 
of  exhaustive  periods  that,  however  great  the  breadth  of  the  Roman 

14Cf.  also  Poen.  426  ff.,  Rud.  938  ff. 

16Cf.  similarly  Cap.  121  ff.,  177  ff.,  Cas.  725  ff.,  Most.  909,  999  f.  Cf.  infra  II. 

B.  5. 

45 


stage,  would  carry  him  several  times  across  and  back:     as  Cur- 
culio  in  279  ff. : 

"Make  way  for  me,  friends  and  strangers,  while  I  carry  out  my 
duty  here.  Run,  all  of  you,  scatter  and  clear  the  road!  I'm  in  a 
hurry  and  I  don't  want  to  butt  into  anybody  with  my  head,  or 
elbow,  or  chest,  or  knee.  .  .  .  And  there's  none  so  rich  as  can 
stand  in  my  way,  .  .  .  none  so  famous  but  down  he  goes  off 
the  sidewalk  and  stands  on  his  head  in  the  street,"  and  so  on  for 
ten  lines  or  more.  After  he  has  found  his  patron  Phaedromus,  he  is 
apparently  so  exhausted  that  he  cries:  "Hold  me  up,  please,  hold 
me  up !    .  (Wobbles  and  falls  panting  into  Phaedromus'  arms.) 

PH.     .     .     .     Get  him  a  chair     .     .     .     quick!" 

When  Leonida  enters  (As.  267  ff.)  as  the  running  slave,  he  is  still 
out  of  breath  at  326-7!  Stasimus  in  Trin.  1008  ff.,  though  his 
mission  is  also  proclaimed  as  desperately  urgent,  pauses  to  declaim 
on  public  morals ! 

Considerable  light  has  been  thrown  upon  this  subject  recently 
by  the  dissertation  of  Weissman,  De  servi  currentis  persona  apnd 
comicos  Romanos  (Giessen,  191 1),  though  his  explanation  of  the 
modus  operandi  is  inconclusive.  Langen  has  commented  on  it  at 
some  length,16  but  offers  no  solution.  Weise  frankly  admits:17 
"Wie  sie  gelaufen  sind,  ist  ein  Ratsel  fur  uns."  LeGrand18  follows 
Weise's  conclusion  that  it  is  an  imitation  from  the  Greek  and  in 
support  of  this  instances  Curculio's  use,  while  running,  of  the 
presumed  translations  from  the  Greek:  agoranomus,  demarchus, 
etc.  He  also  cites  as  parallels  some  unconvincing  phrases  from 
fragments  of  New  Comedy,  while  developing  an  ingenious  theory 
that  the  device  is  a  heritage  from  the  Greek  orchestra,  where  it 
could  have  been  performed  with  a  hippodrome  effect.  Terence 
berates  the  practice,19  but  makes  use  of  it  himself.'20 

Weissman's  conclusions  are  worth  a  summary-  He  notes  the 
following  as  the  usual  essential  concomitants :     1 .     It  is  mentioned 

ie  Plant.  Stud.  pp.  121  f.     Cf.  pp.  101,  137  f.,  158  f.,  217,  229  f. 

"Die  Kom.  des  PL,  pp.  70-71. 

lsDaos,  p.  430-1. 

19Prol.  Haut.  32-40,  Prol.  Eun.  35-40.  Cf.  Eugraphius  ad  Haul.  31: 
quid  tale  hie  est,  cum  servus  currit,  cum  populus  discedit,  quod  domino  insano 
oboediat  servus?     Cf .  also  ad  Haut.  37 ;    Donatus  ad  Phor.  1 .4. 

20And.  338  ff.,  Phor.  179  ff.,  841  ff.,  Ad.  299  ff.  Weissman  agrees  with  Donat. 
that  in  the  last  passage  humor  is  not  the  object.  Cf.  ancilla  currens  in  Eun. 
643  ff. 

46 


in  the  text  that  the  slave  is  on  the  run;  2.  He  is  the  bearer  of 
news  of  moment;  3.  He  fails  to  recognize  other  characters  on 
stage;  4.  He  is  halted  by  the  very  man  he  is  so  violently  seeking. 
He  cites  as  the  genuine  occurrences  of  the  serous  or  parasitus 
currens,  besides  the  passages  mentioned  above,  Cap.  781  ff.,  Ep. 
1  ff.,  192  ff. ,  Mer.  in  ff.,  Per.  272  ff.,  St.  274  ff.  Furthermore,  he 
argues  convincingly  that  this  was  an  independent  Roman  develop- 
ment without  a  prototype  on  the  Greek  stage  and  neatly  refutes 
Weise  and  LeGrand  by  proving  that  there  are  no  extant  Greek 
fragments  sufficient  to  furnish  a  ground  for  any  but  the  most 
tenuous  argument.  Above  all,  he  correctly  interprets  the  poet's 
aim  with  the  dictum:  "Praeterquam  quod  hac  persona  optime 
utitur  ad  actionem  bene  continuandam  id  maxime  spectat  ut  per 
earn  spectatorum  risum  captet."  And  this  from  a  German  youth 
of  twenty-two! 

It  is  in  his  attempt  to  explain  the  mechanism  that  we  believe 
Weissman  fails.  He  essays  an  exegesis  of  each  passage,  though 
the  separate  explanations  are  naturally  similar.  It  will  suffice  to 
quote  one,  that  to  As.  267  ff. :  "Hoc  nullo  modo  aliter  mihi 
declarari  posse  videtur  nisi  sic:  Oratio  Leonidae  currentis  maior 
est  quam  ut  arbitrari  possimus  currentem  semper  eum  habuisse 
earn.  Ex  versu  290  Leonidam  de  celeritate  sua  remisisse  plane 
apparet.  Quod  semel  solum  eum  fecisse  cum  non  satis  mihi  esse 
videatur,  saepius — bis  vel  ter — per  breve  tempus  eum  cursum  suum 
interrupisse,  circumspexisse,  Libanum  autem  non  spectavisse  (hoc 
consilium  poetae  erat,  licentia  poetica  est)  et  hoc  modo  per  totam 
scaenam  cursum  suum  direxisse  arbitror." 

It  will  be  observed  that  for  lack  of  any  tangible  evidence  he  very 
properly  makes  use  of  subjective  reasoning.  Now  it  has  long  been 
the  opinion  of  the  writer  that  the  maximum  of  comic  effect  (and 
that  this  was  the  purpose  of  the  servus  currens  there  can  surely  be 
no  doubt)  could  best  be  obtained  by  the  actor's  making  a  violent 
and  frenzied  pretense  of  running  while  scarcely  moving  from  the 
spot.  Consider  the  ludicrous  spectacle  of  the  rapidly  moving  legs 
and  the  flailing  arms,  with  the  actor's  face  turned  toward  the 
audience,  as  he  declaims  sonorously  of  his  haste  to  perform  his 
vital  errand,  while  making  but  a  snail's  progress.  Truly  then  his 
plea  of  exhaustion  would  not  be  without  excuse !  This  is  an  explan- 
ation at  once  simpler,  more  potentially  comic,  more  in  accord  with 
what  we  predicate  as  the  spirit  of  Plautus,  and  furthermore  we 

47 


have  seen  roars  of  laughter  created  by  the  similar  device  of  a  low 
comedian  in  a  modern  extravaganza.  Taking  advantage  of  the 
same  subjective  license,  we  see  nothing  in  Weissman's  theory  to 
offset  our  opinion.  But,  what  is  more,  our  subjective  reconstruc- 
tion is  given  color  by  a  shred  of  tangible  evidence.  Suetonius  (Tib. 
38)  refers  to  a  popular  quip  on  the  emperor  that  compares  him  to  an 
actor  on  the  classic  Greek  stage:  "Biennio  continuo  post  ademp- 
tum  imperium  pedem  porta  non  extulit;  .  .  .  ut  vulgo  iam 
per  iocum  Callip(p)ides  vocaretur,  quern  cursitare  ac  ne  cubiti 
quidem  mensuram  progredi  proverbio  Graeco  notatum  est." 
That  this  Callipides  was  the  inroxpiTY]?  mentioned  by  Xenophon 
(Sym.  III.  11),  Plutarch  (Ages.  21  and  Apophth.  Lacon.:  s.  v. 
Ages.),  Cicero  (Ad.  Alt.  XIII.  12)  and  possibly  by  Aristotle  (Poet.  26.), 
seems  highly  plausible.  Compare  the  s alius fullonius  (Sen.  Ep.  15.4). 

Most  amusing  of  all  is  Plautus'  introduction  of  a  parody  on  the 
parody,  when  Mercury  rushes  in  post-haste  crying  (Amph.  984  ff.): 

"Make  way,  give  way,  everybody,  clear  the  way!  I  tell  you  all: 
don't  you  get  so  bold  as  to  stand  in  my  road.  For,  egad !  I'd  like 
to  know  why  I,  a  god,  shouldn't  have  as  much  right  to  threaten  the 
rabble  as  a  mere  slave  in  the  comedies!" 

And  perhaps  St.  307  is  a  joke  on  the  running  slave :  Sed  spatium 
hoc  occidit :  brevest  curriculo :  quam  me  paenitet  ?  That  vio- 
lent haste  was  considered  a  slavish  trait  is  evidenced  by  Poen. 
S22-3. 

2 .     Wilful  blindness-. 

In  the  scene  recently  quoted  (Cur.  279  ff.),  Curculio,  after  his 
violent  exertions  in  search  of  his  patron,  is  for  a  time  apparently 
unable  to  discover  him,  though  he  is  on  the  stage  all  the  time.  This 
species  of  blindness  must  be  wilfully  designed  as  a  burlesque  effect 
and  again  finds  its  echo  in  low  comedy  types  of  today.  The 
breadth  and  depth  of  the  Roman  stage  alone  will  not  account  for 
this  either;  indeed,  its  very  size  could  be  utilized  to  heighten  the 
humor,  as  the  actor  peers  hither  and  yon  in  every  direction  but  the 
right  one.  So  Curculio  (front)  may  pass  directly  by  Phaedromus 
(rear)  without  seeing  him,  to  the  huge  delight  of  the  audience,  and 
turn  back  again,  while  saying  (301  ff.) : 

"Is  there  anybody  who  can  point  out  Phaedromus,  my  guardian 
angel,  to  me?  The  matter's  very  urgent:  I  must  find  this  chap 
at  once. 

PALINURUS.     (To  Phaedromus.)     It's  you  he's  looking  for. 

48 


PH.  What  do  you  say  we  speak  to  him?  Hello,  Curculio,  I 
want  you! 

CUR.  (Stopping  and  again  looking  vainly  round.)  Who's 
calling?     Who  say s  "  Curculio ' '  ? 

PH .     Somebody  that  wants  to  see  you. 

CUR.  (At  last  recognizing  him  when  almost  on  top  of  him.)  Ah ! 
You  don't  want  to  see  me  any  more  than  I  want  to  see  you." 

Acanthio  in  Mer.  130  ff.  is  still  more  blind  to  the  presence  of 
Charinus  and  raises  a  deal  more  fuss,  as  he  enters  in  the  wildest 
haste  looking  for  Charinus,  who  is  of  course  in  plain  sight.  Acan- 
thio, with  labored  breathing  and  the  remark  that  he  would  never 
make  a  piper,  probably  passes  by  Charinus  and  goes  to  the  house. 

"AC.  What  am  I  standing  here  for,  anyway?  I'll  make 
splinters  of  these  doors  without  a  single  qualm.  (Hammers  vio- 
lently. Charinus  approaches ,  vainly  trying  to  attract  his  attention.) 
Open  up,  somebody!  Where's  my  master  Charinus,  at  home  or 
out?  (Still  hammering.)  Isn't  anybody  supposed  to  have  the  job 
of  tending  door? 

CH.  (Shouting.)  Here  I  am,  Acanthio!  You're  looking  for 
me,  aren't  you? 

AC.  (Still  punishing  the  door.)  I  never  saw  such  slovenly 
management. 

CH.  (Finally  grabbing  and  shaking  him.)  What  the  deuce  has 
got  hold  of  you?"21  And  so  in  the  case  of  practically  all  the  servi 
currentes. 

The  opening  scene  of  the  Per.  (13  ff .)  between  two  slaves  appar- 
ently unable  to  distinguish  each  other's  features  from  opposite 
sides  of  the  stage  affords  an  opportunity  for  a  similar  species  of 
farcical  by-play.  Toxilus  and  Sagaristio  stroll  slowly  in  from  the 
different  side-entrances,  alternately  soliloquizing.  Suddenly,  when 
probably  fairly  close,  both  look  up  and  peer  curiously  at  each 
other : 

"TOX.  (Shading  his  eyes  with  his  hand.)  Who's  that  standing 
over  there  ? 

SAG.     Who's  this  standing  over  here? 

TOX.     Looks  like  Sagaristio. 

SAG.     I  bet  it's  my  friend  Toxilus. 

TOX.     He's  the  fellow,  all  right. 

21Cf.  servi  currentes  supra.  Cf.  also  Aul.  811  ff.,  Ep.  195  ff.,  Mer.  865  ff., 
Ps.  243  ff.,  St.  330  ff.,  Trin.  1068  ff.,  True.  115  ff. 

49 


SAG.     That's  the  chap,  I'm  sure. 

TOX.     I'll  go  over  to  him. 

SAG.     I'll  go  up  and  speak  to  him.     (They  draw  closer.) 

TOX.     Sagaristio,  I  hope  the  gods  are  good  to  you. 

SAG.  Toxilus,  I  hope  the  gods  give  you  everything  you  want. 
How  are  you? 

TOX.     So  so."22 

Note  that  this  iscanticum  andthe  effect  of  the  two  "sing-songing" 
slaves  on  the  audience  must  have  been  much  the  same  as,  upon  us, 
the  spectacle  of  a  vaudeville  "duo,"  entering  from  opposite  wings 
and  singing  perchance  a  burlesque  of  grand  opera  at  each  other. 
3 .     Adventitious  entrance . 

This  is  of  a  piece  with  the  above,  but  is  usually  due  to  a  weakness 
of  composition,  to  the  goddess  T6x"0>  who  is  the  presiding  deity  of 
the  plots  of  New  Comedy.23  However,  there  are  times  when 
appreciable  fun  can  be  extracted  from  this,  if  the  actor  speak  in  a 
bland  jocular  tone,  taking  the  audience  into  his  confidence,  as 
Trin.  400  f. : 

"PHILTO.  But  the  door  of  the  house  to  which  I  was  going  is 
opening.  Isn't  that  nice?  Lesbonicus,  the  very  man  I'm  looking 
for,  is  coming  out  with  his  slave." 

And  Aul.  176  f. : 

"MEGADORUS.  I'd  like  to  see  Euclio,  if  he's  at  home.  Ah, 
here  he  comes !     He's  on  his  way  home  from  some  place  or  other."24 

We  believe  that  enough  has  been  said  to  prove  that  the  favorite 
devices  of  the  lower  types  of  modern  stage-production  form  the 
back-bone  of  Plautus'  methods  of  securing  his  comic  effects.  Let 
us  pass  on  without  more  ado  to  a  discussion  of  points  that  establish 
equally  well  that  he  was  careless  of  every  other  consideration  but 
the  eliciting  of  laughter. 

22For  other  passages  containing  the  comedy  of  "peering,"  v.  Bac.  534,  Ep. 
526  ff.,  Rud.  331  ff.,  et  al.     Cf.  Weise,  op.  cit.,  p.  72  f. 
23Further  comments  infra  II.  B.  3. 
24Cf.  As.  403,  and  passim. 


50 


II 

* 

Evidences  of  Loose  Composition  Which  Prove  a  Disregard 

of  Technique  and  Hence  Indicate  that  Entertainment 

was  the  Sole  Aim 

A.     Solo  speeches  and  passages. 
i .     Asides  and  soliloquies. 

As  it  is  often  important  for  the  audience  to  know  the  thoughts  of 
stage  characters,  the  aside  and  the  soliloquy  in  all  species  of  dramatic 
■composition  have  always  been  recognized  as  the  only  feasible 
conventional  mode  of  conveying  them.  According  to  the  strictest 
canons  of  dramatic  art,  the  ideally  constructed  play  should  be 
entirely  free  from  this  weakness.  Mr.  Gillette  is  credited  with 
having  written  in  "Secret  Service"  the  first  aside-less  play.  But 
this  is  abnormal  and  rather  an  affectation  of  technical  skill.  The 
aside  is  an  accepted  convention.  But  in  the  plays  of  Plautus  we 
have  a  profuse  riot  of  solo  speeches  and  passages  that  transcends 
the  conventional  and  becomes  a  gross  weakness  of  composition, 
pointing  plainly  to  a  poverty  of  technique  and  hence  further 
strengthening  the  conception  of  entertainment  as  the  author's  sole 
purpose.  And  often  too,  as  we  shall  point  out,  this  very  form  can 
be  used  for  amusement.  To  attempt  a  complete  collection  of  these 
passages  would  mean  a  citation  of  hundreds  of  lines,  comprising  a 
formidable  percentage  of  all  the  verses. 

And  furthermore,  the  Plautine  character  is  not  so  tame  and 
spiritless  as  merely  to  think  aloud.  He  has  a  fondness  for  actual 
conversation  with  himself  that  shows  a  noble  regard  for  the  value 
of  his  own  society.  This  is  attested  by  many  passages,  such  as 
Amph.  381:  Etiam  muttis ? ;  Aul.  52:  At  ut  scelesta  sola  secum 
murmurat;  Aul.  190:  Quid  tu  solus  tecum  loquere?;  Bac.  773: 
Quis  loquitur  prope  ? ;     Cap.  133:   Quis  hie  loquitur  ?25 

One  character  standing  aside  and  commenting  on  the  main 
action  is  a  familiar  situation  and  often  productive  of  good  fun. 
An  excellent  example  is  Most.  166  ft\,  where  Philematium  is  per- 
forming her  conventionally  out-door  toilet  with  the  aid  of  her 

25Cf.  As.  447,  Cur.  in,  Men.  125,  478  f.,  909,  Mer.  364,  379,  Mil.  275, 
Most.  548,  Per.  99,  Poen.  840,  Ps.  445,  615,  908,  Rud.  97,  St.  88,  Trin.  45,  567, 
True.  499,  etc. 

5i 


duenna  Scapha.  Philolaches  stands  on  the  other  side  of  the  stage 
and  interjects  remarks : 

"PHILEM.  Look  at  me  please,  Scapha  dear;  is  this  gown 
becoming?     I  want  to  please  Philolaches,  the  apple  of  my  eye.  .  .  . 

SC.  Why  deck  yourself  out,  when  your  charm  lies  in  your 
charming  manners?  It  isn't  gowns  that  lovers  love,  but  what 
bellies  out  the  gowns. 

PHILO.  (Aside.)  God  bless  me,  but  Scapha's  clever;  the 
hussy  has  horse-sense.     .     . 

PHILEM.     (Pettishly.)     Well,  then? 

SC.     What  is  it? 

PHILEM .     Look  me  over  anyhow  and  see  how  this  becomes  me. 

SC.  The  grace  of  your  figure  makes  everything  you  wear 
becoming. 

PHILO.  (Aside.)  Now  for  that  speech,  Scapha,  I'll  give  you 
some  present  before  the  day  is  out" — and  so  on  for  a  whole  long 
scene. 

The  quips  are  amusing  in  an  evident  burlesque  spirit.  Such  a 
scene  was  easily  done  on  the  broad  Roman  stage,  whether  it  was  a 
heritage  from  the  use  of  the  orchestra  in  Greek  comedy,  as  LeGrand 
thinks,26  or  not.  In  similar  vein,  clever  by-play  on  the  part  of  the 
cunning  Palaestrio  would  make  a  capital  scene  out  of  Mil.  1037  ff.27 
A  perfectly  unnatural  but  utterly  amusing  scene  of  the  same  type 
iis  Amph.  153-262,  where  Mercury  apostrophizes  his  fists,  and  the 
quaking  Sosia  (cross-stage)  is  frightened  to  a  jelly  at  the  prospect  of 
his  early  demise.  In  Cap.  966,  Hegio,  staid  gentleman  that  he  is, 
introduces  an  exceeding  "rough  "remark  in  the  middle  of  a  serious 
scene.  The  aside  of  Pseudolus  in  Ps.  ,636  f .  could  be  rendered  as  a 
good-natured  burlesque  as  follows : 

"HARPAX.     What's  your  name? 

PS.  (Hopping  forward  and  addressing  audience  with  hand  over 
mouth.)  The  pander  has  a  slave  named  Surus.  I'll  say  I'm  he. 
(Hopping  back  and  addressing  Harpax.)  I'm  Surus."  Many 
other  scenes  were  doubtless  rendered  by  one  character's  thus 
stepping  aside  and  confiding  his  ideas  to  the  spectators,  as  for 
example  Aul.  194  ff.  and  Trin.  895  ff.  Often  our  characters  blurt 
out  their  inmost  thoughts  to  the  public,  as  in  Cas.  937  ff .,  with  eaves- 
droppers conveniently  placed,  else  what  would  become  of  the  plot  ? 

26Daos,  p.  431  ff.     See  Dieterich,  Pulcinella,  PI.  II.     Note  esp.  As.  851  ff. 
27Cf.  Per.  81  ff.,  599  ff.,  Pom.  210  ff.,  et  al. 

52 


The  soliloquy  is  constantly  used  to  keep  the  audience  acquainted 
with  the  advance  of  the  plot,28  or  to  paint  in  narrative  intervening 
•events  that  connect  the  loose  joints  of  the  action.  This  is  of 
course  wholly  inartistic,  but  may  often  find  its  true  office  in  keeping 
a  noisy,  turbulent  and  uneducated  audience  aware  of  "what  is 
going  on."  In  many  cases  the  soliloquy  is  in  the  nature  of  a 
reflection  on  the  action  and  seems  to  bear  all  the  ear-marks  of  a 
heritage  from  the  original  function  of  the  tragic  chorus.29  It 
devolved  upon  the  actor  by  sprightly  mimicry  to  relieve,  in  these 
scenes,  the  tedium  that  appeals  to  the  reader.  So  in  Cap.  909  ff. 
the  caniicum  of  the  puer  becomes  more  than  a  mere  stop-gap,  if  he 
acts  out  vividly  the  violence  of  Ergasilus;  and  in  Bac.  1067  ff.  the 
soliloquy  would  acquire  humor,  if  confidentially  directed  at  the 
audience.  In  As.  127  ff.,  as  Argyrippus  berates  the  Una  within, 
it  must  be  delivered  with  an  abundance  of  pantomime. 

2.     Lengthy  monodies,  monologues  and  episodical  specialties. 

Frequently  the  soliloquy  takes  the  form  of  a  long  solo  passage 
directed  at  the  audience,  while  the  action  halts  for  a  whole  scene 
to  allow  the  actor  to  regale  his  public  with  the  poet's  views  on  the 
sins  of  society,  economic  topics  of  the  day,  or  topics  of  the  by-gone 
days  in  Athens,  and  the  like.  The  resemblance  to  the  interpolated 
song  and  dance  of  musical  comedy  is  most  striking.  The  compari- 
son is  the  more  apt,  as  about  two-thirds  of  the  illustrative  scenes 
referred  to  in  the  next  paragraph  are  in  caniicum.  It  is  a  pity  that 
the  comic  chorus  had  disappeared,  or  the  picture  were  complete. 
That  it  is  often  on  the  actor's  initial  appearance  that  he  sings  his 
song  or  speaks  his  piece,  strengthens  the  resemblance.  But  this  is 
a  natural  growth  under  the  influence  of  two  publics,  the  Greek  and 
the  Roman,  notably  fond  of  declamation  and  oratory.  LeGrand 
believes  this  a  characteristic  directly  derived  from  a  narrative 
form  of  Middle  Comedy  embodied  in  certain  extant  fragments.30 

28V.  Amph.  952-3,  As.  118  ff.,  243  ff.,  Aul.  67  ff.,  667  ff.,  701  ff.,  Bac.  170  ff., 
349  ff.,  573  ff.,  761  ff.,  Cas.  504  ff.,  Cis.  120  ff.,  Cur.  216  ff.,  591  ff.,  Met.  544  ff., 
588  ff.,  Mil.  464  ff.,  Most.  931  ff.,  1041  ff.,  Rud.  1191  ff.,  St.  674  ff.,  et  al. 

29V.  Cas.  424  ff.,  759  tt.,Ep.  81  K.,Men.  lo^g  ft.,  Ps.  ioi7ff.,  1052  ff.,  ii02ff., 
Rud.  892  ff.,  1281  ff.,  St.  641  ff.,  Trin.  199  ff.,  11 15  ff.,  True.  322  ff.,  335  ff.,  645 
ff.,  699  ff. 

Cf.  the  treatment  of  Le  Grand,  Daos,  p.  412  ff.,  where  he  has  an  analysis 
from  a  different  point  of  view.  The  soliloquy  and  aside  are  evidently  not  so 
frequent  in  New  Comedy. 

30Daos  p.  379.     Cf.  p.  550. 

53 


The  slave  class  is  the  topic  of  many  of  these  monodies :  either 
the  virtues  of  the  loyal  slave  are  extolled,31  or  the  knavery  of  the 
cunning  slave.32  The  parasite  is  "featured"  too,  when  Ergasilus 
bewails  the  decline  of  his  profession,33  or  Peniculus  and  Gelasimus 
indulge  in  haunting  threnody  on  their  perpetual  lack  of  food.34 
Bankers,  lawyers  and  panders  come  in  for  their  share  of  satire.35 
Our  favorite  topic  today,  the  frills  and  furbelows  of  woman's  dress 
and  its  reform,  held  the  boards  of  ancient  Athens  and  Rome.36 
In  Mil.  637  ff.,  Periplecomenus  descants  on  the  joys  of  the  old  bon 
vivant  and  the  expense  of  a  wife.  The  delights  or  pains  of  love,37 
the  ruminations  of  old  age,38  marriage  reform39  and  divorce,40  the 
views  of  meretrices  and  their  victims  on  the  arts  of  their  profession,41 
the  habits  of  cooks,42  the  pride  of  valor  and  heroic  deeds43  are  fruit- 
ful subjects.  In  Cur.  462  ff.  the  choragus  interpolates  a  recital 
composed  of  topical  allusions  to  the  manners  of  different  neighbor- 
hoods of  Rome.  We  have  two  descriptions  of  dreams,44  and  a 
clever  bit  which  paints  a  likeness  between  a  man  and  a  house.45 
In  foreign  vein  is  the  lament  of  Palaestra  in  Rud.  185  ff.,  which 
sounds  like  an  echo  from  tragedy.  The  appearance  of  the  Fisher- 
men's Chorus  {Rud.  290  ff.)  is  wholly  adventitious  and  seems 
designed  to  intensify  the  atmosphere  of  the  seacoast,  if  indeed  it 
has  any  purpose  at  all.  In  this  category  also  belong  the  revels  of 
the  drunken  Pseudolus  with  his  song  and  dance,46  and  the  final 
scene  of  the  St.47  where,  the  action  of  the  slender  plot  over,  the 
comedy  slaves  royster  and  dance  with  the  harlot.  When  Ballio 
drives  his  herd  before  him,  as  he  berates  them  merrily  to  the  tune 
of  a  whip,  we  have  an  energetic  and  effective  scene.48 

zlAul.  587  ff.,  Men.  966  ff.  Cf.  Most.  858  ff.  and  As.  545  ff.,  a  duologue  in 
canticum.  32Bac.  640  ff.     Cf.  Ps.  767  ff. 

™Cap.  461  ff.,  Cf.  Per.  53  ff.  uMen.  77  ff.,  446  ff.,  St.  155  ff. 

35Cur.  371  ff.,  (Cf.  494  ff.),  Men.  571  ff.,  Poen.  823  ff.  ™Ep.  225  ff. 

3*Cas.  217  ff.,  Trin.  223  ff.  (Cf.  660  ff.)  ™Men.  753  ff. 

MAul.  475  ff.  (496-536  branded  as  spurious  by  Weise,  op.  cit.,  pp.  42-44). 

MMer.  817  ff. 

41Poen.  210  ff.  (though  not  a  solo),  True.  22  ff.,  210  ff.,  551  ff. 

42Ps.  790  ff.  i3Truc.  482  ff. 

uMer.  825  ff.,  Rud.  593  ff.  ibMost.  85  ff. 

46Ps.  1246  ff.  i7St.  683  to  end. 

4SPs.  133  ff.  For  further  passages  of  the  episodical  type,  cf.  Bac.  925  ff. 
(v.  supra  under  "bombast,"  I.  A.  1),  Poen.  449  ff.,  Rud.  906  ff.,  Trin.  820  ff. 
(v.  supra  under  "burlesque,"  I.  A.  3). 

54 


(, 


3.     Direct  address  of  the  audience. 

It  is  a  well-established  principle  that  the  most  intimate  cogni- 
zance of  the  spectator's  existence  is  a  characteristic  of  the  lowest 
types  of  dramatic  production  (v.  Part  I,  §  i,  fin.).  The  use  of 
soliloquy,  aside  and  monologue  all  indicate  the  effort  of  the  lines  to 
put  the  player  on  terms  of  intimacy  with  his  public.  But  even 
this  is  transcended  by  the  frequent  recurrence  in  jocular  vein  of 
deliberate,  conscious  and  direct  address  of  the  audience,  when 
they  are  called  by  name.  In  True.  482  Stratophanes  says:  Ne 
expectetis,  spectatores,  meas  pugnas  dum  praedicem.  ...  In 
Poen.  597  we  are  told:  Aurumst  profecto  hie,  spectatores,  sed 
comicum;  i.  e.,  "stage-money."  During  a  halt  in  the  action  of  the 
Ps-  (573)  we  are  graciously  informed:  Tibicen  vos  interibi  hie 
delectaverit.  Mercury's  comments  (Amph.  449-550  passim), 
probably  with  copious  buffoonery,  on  the  leave-taking  of  Jove  and 
Alcmena  contain  the  remark  (507) :  Observatote,  quam  blande 
mulieri  palpabitur.  At  the  close  of  the  Men.  (11 57  ff.)  Messenio 
announces  an  auction  and  invites  the  spectators  to  attend. 

When  Euclio  discovers  the  loss  of  his  hoard,  he  rushes  forth  in 
wild  lament.    In  his  extremity  he  turns  to  the  audience^Aw/.  7 1 5  ff .) : 

"EUC.  I  beg,  I  beseech,  I  implore  you,  help  me  and  show  me 
the  man  that  stole  it.  (Picking  out  one  of  the  spectators,  probably  a 
tough  looking  "bruiser",  and  stretching  out  his  hand  to  him.)  What 
do  you  say  ?  I  know  I  can  trust  you.  I  can  tell  by  your  face  you're 
honest.  (To  the  whole  audience,  in  response  to  the  laughter  sure  to 
ensue.)  What's  the  matter?     What  are  you  laughing  at?"  etc. 

Moilere  has  imitated  this  scene  very  closely  in  L'Avare  (IV.  7), 
with  a  super-Plautine  profusion  of  verbiage. 

In  Mil.  200  ff.  Periplecomenus  obligingly  acts  as  guide  and  per- 
sonal conductor  to  the  manoeuvers  of  Palaestrio's  mind,  while  it  is 
in  the  throes  of  evolving  a  stratagem.  Palaestrio  of  course  indulges 
in  vivid,  pointed  pantomime: 

"PER.  I'll  step  aside  here  awhile.  (To  audience,  pointing  to 
Palaestrio.)  Look  yonder,  please,  how  he  stands  with  serried  brow 
in  anxious  contemplation.  His  fingers  smite  his  breast;  I  trow,  he 
fain  would  summon  forth  his  heart.  Presto,  change!  His  left 
hand  he  rests  upon  his  left  thigh.  With  the  fingers  of  his  right  he 
reckons  out  his  scheme.     Ha!     He  whacks  his  right  thigh!"  etc. 

It  is  very  amusing  too,  when  Jupiter  in  Amph.  861  ff.  strolls  in 
and  speaks  his  little  piece  to  the  pit : 

55 


"JUP.  I  am  the  renowned  Amphitruo,  whose  slave  is  Sosia; 
you  know,  the  fellow  that  turns  into  Mercury  at  will.  I  dwell  in 
my  sky-parlor  and  become  Jupiter  the  while,  ad  libitum."49 

Even  in  olden  times  Euanthius  censured  this  practice  (de  Com. 
III.  6)50:  <Terentius  >  nihil  ad  populum  facit  actorem  velut  extra 
comoediam  loqui,  quod  vitium  Plauti  frequentissimum. 

Naturally  we  shall  hardly  consider  under  this  head  the  speech  of 
the  whole  grex,  or  the  "Nunc  plaudite"  of  an  actor  that  closes  a 
number  of  the  plays.  It  is  no  more  than  the  bowing  or  curtain- 
calls  of  today,51  unless  it  was  an  emphatic  announcement  to  the 
audience  that  the  play  was  over. 

B.     Inconsistencies  and  carelessness  of  composition. 

We  have  referred  above  to  the  voluminous  mass  of  inconsisten- 
cies, contradictions  and  psychological  improbabilities  collected  by 
Langen  in  his  Plautinische  Studien.  He  really  succeeds  in  finding 
the  crux  of  the  situation  in  recognizing  that  these  features  are 
inherent  in  Plautus'  style  and  are  frequently  employed  solely  for 
comic  effect,  though  he  is  often  overcome  by  a  natural  Teutonic 
stolidity.  He  aptly  points  out  that  Plautus  in  his  selection  of 
originals  has  in  the  main  chosen  plots  with  more  vigorous  action 
than  Terence.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  quote  him  at  intervals, 
but  desire  to  develop  this  topic  quite  independently, 
i .     Pointless  badinage  and  padded  scenes. 

Strong  evidence  of  loose  construction  and  lack  of  a  technical 
dramatic  ideal  is  contained  in  the  large  number  of  scenes  padded 
out  with  pointless  badinage,  often  tiresome,  often  wholly  episodical 
in  nature,  as  the  monodies,  and  putting  for  a  time  a  complete  check 
on  the  plot.  The  most  striking  of  these  is  Aul.  631  ff.,  when 
Euclio,  suspecting  Strobilus  of  the  theft  of  his  gold,  pounces  upon 
him  and  belabors  him: 

"STR.  (Howling  and  dancing  and  making  violent  efforts  to  free 
himself.)  What  the  plague  has  got  hold  of  you?  What  have  you 
to  do  with  me,  you  dotard?  Why  pick  on  me?  Why  are  you 
grabbing  me?     Don't  beat  me!     (Succeeds  in  breaking  loose.) 

49Cf.  further  Amph.  463,  998,  Bac.  1072,  Cap.  69  ff.,  Cas.  879,  Cis.  146,  678, 
Men.  88o,  Mer.  313,  Mil.  862,  Most.  280,  354,  708  ff.,  Poen.  921  f.,  Ps.  124, 
Si.  224,  446,  674  ff.,  True.  109  ff .,  463  ff.,  965  ff.    Cf.  infra  II.  B.  5. 

50In  Donat.  ed.  Wessner. 

51V.  As.,  Bac.,  Cap.,  Cis.,  Cur.,  Ep.,  Men.,  Mer.,  Most.,  Per.,  Rud.,  St. 
Cf.  Cas.  1013  ff.,  Poen.  1370  f. 

56 


EUC.  (Shaking  stick  at  him.)  You  first-class  jailbird,  do  you 
dare  ask  me  again?  You're  not  a  thief,  but  three  thieves  rolled 
into  one ! 

STR.     (Whining  and  nursing  bruises.)     What  did  I  steal  from 


you 


EUC.     (Still  threatening.)     Give  it  back  here,  I  say? 

STR.  (Trembling  and  edging  off.)  What  is  it  you  want  me  to 
give  back  ? 

EUC.     (Watching  him  narrowly.)     You  ask? 

STR.     I  tell  you,  I  didn't  take  a  thing  from  you. 

EUC.  (Impatiently.)  All  right,  but  hand  over  what  you  did 
take!     (Pause.)     Well,  well! 

STR.     Well,  what? 

EUC.     You  can't  get  away  with  it. 

STR.     (Bolder.)     Look  here,  what  do  you  want?     .     .     . 

EUC.  (Angrier  and  angrier.)  Hand  it  over,  I  say!  Stop 
quibbling !     I'm  not  trifling  now ! 

STR.  Now  what  shall  I  hand  over?  Speak  out!  Why  don't 
you  give  the  thing  a  name?  I  swear  I  never  touched  or  handled 
anything  of  yours. 

EUC.     Put  out  your  hands. 

STR.     There  you  are!     I've  done  so.     See  them? 

EUC.  (Scrutinizing  his  hands  closely.)  All  right.  Now  put 
out  the  third  too. 

STR.  (Aside,  growing  angry.)  The  foul  fiends  of  madness  have 
possessed  this  doddering  idiot.  (Majestically.)  Confess  you 
wrong  me  ? 

EUC.  (Dancing  in  frenzy.)  To  the  utmost,  since  I  don't  have 
you  strung  up!  And  that's  what'll  happen  too,  if  you  don't 
confess. 

STR.     (Shouting.)     Confess  what? 

EUC.     What  did  you  steal  from  here ?     (Pointing  to  his  house.) 

STR.  Strike  me  if  I  stole  anything  of  yours,  (Aside  to  audience) 
and  if  I  don't  wish  I'd  made  off  with  it. 

EUC.     Come  now,  shake  out  your  cloak. 

STR.     (Doing  so.)     As  you  please. 

EUC.  (Stooping  to  see  if  anything  falls  out.)  Haven't  got  it 
under  your  shirt?     (Pounces  upon  him  and  ransacks  clothing.) 

STR.  (Resignedly.)  Search  me,  if  you  like;"  and  so  on  with 
"Give  it  back,"  What  is  it?     "Put  out  your  right  hand,"  etc.,  etc. 

57 


Moliere  again  imitated  almost  slavishly  (UAvare,  V.  3).  Long- 
winded  as  the  thing  is,  it  is  clear  that  the  liveliness  of  the  action  not 
only  relieves  it,  but  could  make  it  immensely  amusing.  At  least 
it  is  superior  to  the  average  vaudeville  skit  of  the  present  day.  It 
must  not  be  forgotten  too  that,  as  Plautus  was  in  close  touch  with 
his  players,  he  could  have  done  much  of  the  stage-directing  himself 
and  might  even  have  worked  up  some  parts  to  fit  the  peculiar 
talents  of  certain  actors,  as  is  regularly  done  in  the  modern  "tailor- 
made  drama." 

There  are  numbers  of  scenes  of  the  sort  quoted  above,  where  the 
apparent  monotony  and  verbal  padding  could  be  converted  into 
coin  for  laughter  by  the  clever  comedian.  Amph.  551-632  could 
be  worked  up  poco  a  poco  crescendo  e  animato;  in  Poen.  504  ff., 
Agorastocles  and  the  Advocati  bandy  extensive  rhetoric;  in  Trin. 
2  76  ff .,  the  action  is  suspended  while  Philto  proves  himself  Polonius' 
ancestor  in  his'  long-winded  sermonizing  to  Lysiteles  and  his 
insistent  landatio  temporis  acti;  in  St.  326  ff.,  as  Pinacium,  the 
servus  currens,  finally  succeeds  in  "arriving"  out  of  breath  (he  has 
been  running  since  274),  bursting  with  the  vast  importance  of  his 
news,  he  postpones  the  delivery  of  his  tidings  till  371  while  he 
indulges  in  irrelevant  badinage.  This  is  pure  buffoonery.  And  we 
can  instance  scene  upon  scene  where  the  self-evident  padding  can 
either  furnish  an  excuse  for  agile  histrionism,  or  become  merely 
tiresome  in  its  iteration.52  The  danger  of  the  latter  was  even 
recognized  by  our  poet,  when,  at  the  end  of  much  word-fencing, 
Acanthio  asks  Charinus  if  his  desire  to  talk  quietly  is  prompted  by 
fear  of  waking  "the  sleeping  spectators"  (Mer.  160).  This  was 
probably  no  exaggeration. 

When  the  padding  takes  the  form  of  mutual  "spoofing,"'  the 
scene  assumes  an  uncanny  likeness  to  the  usual  lines  of  a  modern 
"high-class  vaudeville  duo."  Note  Leonida  and  Libanus,  the 
merry  slaves  of  the  As.  in  297  ff.,  Toxilus  and  Sagaristio  in  the  Per., 
Milphio  and  Syncerastus  in  the  Poen.  (esp.  851  ff.),  Pseudolus  and 
Simia  in  Ps.  905  ff.,  Trachalio  and  Gripus  in  Rud.  938  ff.,  Stichus 
and  Sagarinus  in  the  final  scene  of  the  St.,  and  in  Ps.  1167  ff. 

52V.  Bac.  235-367,  Cap.  835-99,  Cis.  203  ff.,  540-630,  705  ff.,  Cur.  251-73 
and  passim  (this  play  is  full  of  bandying  of  quips),  Ep.  1  ff.,  Men.  137-81, 
602-67,  Mer.  474  ff.,  708  ff.,  866  ff.,  Most.  633  ff.,  717  ff.,  885  ff.,  Per.  1  ff., 
201  ff.,  Poen.  210  ff.,  Ps.  653  ff.  and  passim,  Rud.  485  ff.  (the  jokes  here  are 
unusually  good),  780  ff.,  St.  579  ff.,  Trin.  39  ff.,  843  ff.,  True.  95  ff. 

^58 


Harpax  is  unmercifully  "chaffed"  bySimo  and  Ballio.  Or,  in 
view  of  the  surrounding  drama,  we  might  better  compare  these 
roysterers  to  the  "team"  of  low  comedians  often  grafted  on  a 
musical  comedy,  where  their  antics  effectually  prevent  the  tenuous 
plot  from  becoming  vulgarly  prominent. 

2.     Inconsistencies  of  character  and  situation. 

The  Plautine  character  is  never  a  consistent  human  character. 
He  is  rather  a  personified  trait,  a  broad  caricature  on  magnified 
foibles  of  some  type  of  mankind.  There  is  never  any  character 
development,  no  chastening.  We  leave  our  friends  as  we  found 
them.  They  may  exhibit  the  outward  manifestation  of  grief,  joy, 
love,  anger,  but  their  marionette  nature  cannot  be  affected  thereby. 
That  we  should  find  inconsistencies  in  character  portrayal  under 
these  circumstances,  is  not  only  to  be  expected,  but  is  a  mathe- 
matical certainty.  The  poet  cares  not;  they  must  only  dance, 
dance,  dance! 

Persistent  moralizers,  such  as  Megaronides  in  the  Trin.,  who 
serve  but  as  a  foil  from  whom  the  revelry  "sticks  fiery  off,"  descend 
themselves  at  moments  to  bandying  the  merriest  quips  (Scene  I.) 
In  Ep.  382  ff.,  the  moralizing  of  Periphanes  is  counterfeit  coinage. 
Gilded  youths  such  as  Calidorus  of  the  Ps.  begin  by  asking  (290  f.) : 
*' Could  I  by  any  chance  trip  up  father,  who  is  such  a  wide-awake 
old  boy?",  and  end  by  rolling  their  eyes  upward  with:  "And 
besides,  if  I  could,  filial  piety  prevents."  The  Menaechmi  twins 
are  eminently  respectable,  but  they  cheerfully  purloin  mantles, 
bracelets  and  purses.  Hanno  of  the  Poen.  should  according  to 
specifications  be  a  staid  paterfamilias,  but  Plautus  imputes  to  him 
a  layer  cf  the  Punica  fides  that  he  knew  his  public  would  take 
delight  in  "booing."  And  the  old  gentleman  enters  into  a  plot 
(iogo)  to  chaff  elaborately  his  newly-found  long-lost  daughters, 
whom  he  has  spent  a  lifetime  in  seeking,  before  disclosing  his 
identity  to  them  (121 1  ff.).  Saturio's  daughter  in  the  Per.  is  at 
one  time  the  very  model  of  maidenly  modesty  and  wisdom  (336  ff.), 
at  others  an  accomplished  intriguante  and  demi-mondaine  (549  ff., 
esp.  607  ff.).  When  the  plot  of  the  Ep.  is  getting  hopelessly 
tangled,  of  a  sudden  it  is  magically  resolved  as  by  a  deus  ex  machina 
and  everybody  decides  to  "shake  and  make  up." 

Slaves  ever  fearful  of  the  mills  or  quarries  are  yet  prone  to  the 
most     abominable     "freshness"     towards     their     masters.     The 


59 


irrepressible  Pseudolus  in  reading  a  letter  from  Calidorus'  mistress 
says  (27  ff.) : 

"What  letters!  Humph!  I'm  afraid  the  Sibyl  is  the  only  person 
capable  of  interpreting  these. 

CAL.  Oh  why  do  you  speak  so  rudely  of  those  lovely  letters 
written  on  a  lovely  tablet  with  a  lovely  hand  ? 

PS.  Well,  would  you  mind  telling  me  if  hens  have  hands  ?  For 
these  look  to  me  very  like  hen-scratches. 

CAL.     You  insulting  beast !     Read,  or  return  the  tablet ! 

PS.  Oh,  I'll  read  all  right,  all  right.  Just  focus  your  mind  on 
this. 

CAL.     {Pointing  vacantly  to  his  head.)     Mind?     It's  not  here. 

PS.     What!     Go  get  one  quick  then!"53 

In  order  that  the  machinations  of  these  cunning  slaves  may 
mature,  it  is  usually  necessary  to  portray  their  victims  as  the 
veriest  fools.  Witness  the  cock-and-bull  story  by  which  Stasimus, 
in  Trin.  515  ff.,  convinces  Philto  that  his  master's  land  is  an 
undesirable  real  estate  prospect.  Dordalus  in  Per.  (esp.  493  ff.) 
exhibits  a  certain  amount  of  caution  in  face  of  Toxilus'  "confidence 
game,"  but  that  he  should  be  victimized  at  all  stamps  him  as  a 
caricature. 

LeGrand  is  certainly  right  in  pronouncing  the  cunning  slave  a 
pure  convention,  adapted  from  the  Greek  and  so  unsuitable  to 
Roman  society  that  even  Plautus  found  it  necessary  to  apologize 
for  their  unrestrained  gambols,  on  the  ground  that  'that  was  the 
way  they  did  in  Athens!'54 

Certain  of  the  characters,  are  caricatures  par  excellence,  embodi- 
ments of  a  single  attribute.  Leaena  of  the  Cur.  is  the  perpetually 
thirsty  Una:  "Wine,  wine,  wine!"55  Cleaerata  of  the  As.  is  a 
plain  caricature,  but  is  exceptionally  cleverly  drawn  as  the  lena 
with  the  mordant  tongue.  Phronesium's  thirst  in  the  True,  is 
gold,  gold,  gold !  The  danista  of  the  Most,  finds  the  whole  expres- 
sion of  his  nature  in  the  cry  of  "Faenus!"56  Assuredly,  he  is  the' 
progenitor  of  the  modern  low-comedy  Jew :  "I  vant  my  inderesd !" 
Calidorus  of  the  Ps.  and  Phaedromus  of  the  Cur.  are  but  bleeding 

53Cf.  Sosia  im  Amph.  (esp.  659  ff.),  Libanus  in  As.  1  ff.,  Palinurus  in  Cur., 
Acanthio  in  Mer.  (esp.  137  ff.),  Milphio  in  Poen.,  Sceparnio  in  Rud.  (esp.  104 
ff.)  and  Trachalio,  Pinacium  in  St.  (esp.  331  ff.),  Stasimus  in  Trin. 

SiSt.  446  ff.,  Prol.  Cas.  67  ff.  For  an  exhaustive  discussion  of  the  'truth  to 
life'  of  the  characters,  v.  LeGrand,  Daos,  Part  I,  Chap.  V. 

55V.  esp.  96  ff.  566o3  ff. 

60 


hearts  dressed  up  in  clothes.  The  milites  gloriosi  are  all  cartoons;57 
and  the  perpetually  moralizing  pedagogue  Lydus  of  the  Bac. 
becomes  funny,  instead  of  egregiously  tedious,  if  acted  as  a  broad 
burlesque. 

The  panders58  are  all  manifest  caricatures,  too,  especially  the 
famous  Ballio  of  the  Ps.,  whom  even  Lorenz  properly  describes  as 
"der  Einbegriff  aller  Schlechtigkeit,"  though  he  deprecates  the 
part  as  "eine  etwas  zu  grell  and  zu  breit  angefuhrte  Schilderung."59 
"Ego  scelestus,"  says  Ballio  himself.60  He  calmly  and  unctuously 
pleads  guilty  to  every  charge  of  "liar,  thief,  perjurer,"  etc.,  and  can 
never  be  induced  to  lend  an  ear  until  the  cabalistic  charm 
"Lucrum!"  is  pronounced  (264). 

The  famous  miser  Euclio  has  given  rise  to  an  inordinate  amount 
of  unnecessary  comment.  Lamarre61  is  at  great  pains  to  defend 
Plautus  from  "le  reproche  d'avoir  introduit  dans  la  peinture  de 
son  principal  personnage  <Euclio  >  des  traits  outres  et  hors  de 
nature."  Indeed,  he  possesses  few  traits  in  accord  with  normal 
human  nature.  But  curiously  enough,  as  we  learn  from  the 
argumenta  (in  view  of  the  loss  of  the  genuine  end  of  the  Aul.), 
Euclio  at  the  denouement  professes  himself  amply  content  to  bid  an 
everlasting  farewell  to  his  stolen  hoard,  and  bestows  his  health  and 
blessing  on  "the  happy  pair."  This  apparent  conversion,  with 
absolutely  nothing  dramatic  to  furnish  an  introduction  or  pretext 
for  it,  has  caused  Langen  to  depart  from  his  usual  judicious  scholar- 
ship. After  much  hair-splitting  he  solemnly  pronounces  it  "psy- 
chologically possible."62  LeGrand  points  out63  that  his  change  of 
heart  is  not  a  conversion,  but  merely  a  professed  reconciliation  to 
the  loss.  But  there  is  no  need  for  all  this  "pother.  The  simple 
truth  is  that  Plautus  was  through  with  his  humorous  complication 
and  was  ready  to  top  it  off  with  a  happy  ending.  It  is  the  fore- 
runner of  modern  musical  comedy,  where  the  grouchy  millionaire 
papa  is  propitiated  at  the  last  moment  (perhaps  by  the  pleadings 

57Pyrgopolinices  in  Mil.,  Therapontigonus  in  Cur.,  the  miles  in  Ep.,  Anthemo- 
nides  in  Poen. ;   Stratophanes  in  True,  is  not  so  violent. 

58Cappadox  in  Cur.,  Dordalus  in  Per.,  Lycus  in  Poen.,  Labrax  in  Rud. 
Similarly  the  lenae. 

59Introd.  to  ed.  of  Ps. 

60355-     Cf.  360  ff.,  974  ff. 

6lHist.  de  la  lit.  lat.     Bk.  II,  Ch.  III.,  Sec.  4,  p.  307. 

62Plaut.  Stud.,  p.  105.  ^Daos,  pp.  557  f.     Cf.  218  f. 

61 


of  the  handsome  widow),  and  similarly  consents  to  his  daughter's 

/arriage  with  the  handsome,  if  impecunious,  ensign. 
3.     Looseness  of  dramatic  construction. 

Lorenz  with  commendable  insight  has  pointed  out64  that  T-'r/rn 
the  goddess  of  Chance,  is  the  motive  power  of  the  Plautine  plot,  as 
distinguished  from  the  ^oipa  of  tragedy.  A  student  of  Plautus 
readily  recognizes  this  point.  The  entire  development  of  the  Rud. 
and  Poen.  exemplifies  it  in  the  highest  degree.  Hanno  in  the  Poen., 
in  particular,  meets  first  of  all,  in  the  strange  city  of  Calydon,  the 
very  man  he  is  looking  for!  When  Pseudolus  is  racking  his  wits 
for  a  stratagem,  Harpax  obligingly  drops  in  with  all  the  requisites. 
The  ass-dealer  in  the  As.  is  so  ridiculously  fortuitous  that  it  savors 
of  childlike  naivete. 

C  Characters  are  perpetually  entering  just  when  wanted]  We  hear 
"Optume  advenis"  and  "Eccum  ipsum  video"  so  frequently  that 
they  become  as' meaningless  as  "How  d'ye  do!"65;  though,  as 
shown  above,66  even  this  very  weakness  could  at  moments  be  made 
the  pretext  for  a  mild  laugh. 

For  a  complete  catalogue  of  the  formidable  mass  of  inconsisten- 
cies and  contradictions  that  throng  the  plays,  the  reader  is  referred 
to  the  Plautinische  Studien  of  Langen,  as  aforesaid.  It  will  be  of 
passing  interest  to  recall  one  or  two.  In  Cas.  530  Lysidamus  goes 
to  the  "forum"  and  returns  32  verses  later  complaining  that  he  has 
wasted  the  whole  day  standing  "advocate"  for  a  kinsman.  But 
this  difficulty  is  resolved,  if  we  accept  the  theory  of  Prof.  Kent 
(TAPA.  XXXVII),  that  the  change  of  acts  which  occurs  in 
between,  is  a  conventional  excuse  for  any  lapse  of  time,  in  Roman 
comedy  as  well  as  in  Greek  tragedy.  But  it  is  extremely  doubtful 
that  Prof.  Kent  succeeds  in  establishing  the  truth  of  this  view  in 
the  case  of  Roman  comedy.  We  see  no  convincing  reason  for 
departing  from  the  accepted  theory,  as  expressed  by  Duff  (A 
Literary  History  of  Rome,  pp.  196-7):  "In  Plautus'  time  a  play 
proceeded  continuously  from  the  lowering  of  the  curtain  at  the 
beginning  to  its  rise  at  the  end,  save  for  short  breaks  filled  generally 
by  simple  music  from  the  tibicen  (Ps.   573).     The  division  into 

64Introd.  to  Ps.     Cf.  Daos,  p.  452  ff. 

65E.  g.,  Amph.  957,  Bac.  844,  Cas.  308,  Men.  898,  Mil.  1137,  1188,  Per.  301, 
543,  Poen.  576,  Rud.  1209,  St.  400-1,  Trin.  482. 
66Part  II,  Sec.  I.  B.  2. 

62 


scenes  is  ancient  and  regularly  indicated  in  manuscripts  of  Plautus 
and   Terence." 

Langen  seems  surprised67  when  Menaechmus  Sosicles,  on  behold- 
ing his  twin  for  the  first  time  (Men.  1062),  though  he  was  the 
object  of  a  six  years'  search,  wades  through  some  twenty  lines  of 
amazed  argument  before  Messenio  (with  marvelous  cunning!)  hits 
on  the  true  explanation.  It  is  of  course  conceived  in  a  burlesque 
spirit.  What  would  become  of  the  comic  action  if  Menaechmus  II 
simply  walked  up  to  Menaechmus  I  and  remarked:  "Hello, 
brother,  don't  you  remember  me?" 

That  the  seven  months  of  Most.  470  miraculously  change  into 
six  months  in  954  is  the  sort  of  mistake  possible  to  any  writer.  In 
the  Amph.  1053  ff .,  Alcmena  is  in  labor  apparently  a  few  minutes 
after  consorting  with  Jupiter ;  but  the  change  of  acts  may  account 
for  the  lapse  of  time,  here  as  in  Cas.  530  ff. 

But  after  the  exhaustive  work  of  Langen,  we  need  linger  no 
longer  in  this  well-ploughed  field.  We  repeat,  the  evidence  all 
points  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion  that  Plautus  is  wholly  careless 
of  his  dramatic  machinery  so  long  as  it  moves.  The  laugh's  the 
thing ! 

The  St.  is  an  apt  illustration  of  the  probable  workings  of  Plautus' 
mind.  The  virtue  of  the  Penelope-like  Pamphila  and  Panegyris 
proves  too  great  a  strain  and  unproductive  of  merriment.  The 
topic  gradually  vanishes  as  the  drolleries  of  the  parasite  Gelasimus 
usurp  the  boards.  He  in  turn  gives  way  to  the  hilarious  buffoonery 
of  the  two  slaves.  The  result  is  a  succession  of  loose-jointed 
scenes.68  The  Aul.  too  is  fragmentary  and  episodical.  The  Trin. 
is  insufferably  long-winded,  with  insufficient  comic  accompani- 
ment. The  Cis.  is  a  wretched  piece  of  vacuous  inanity.69 
4.     Roman  admixture  and  topical  allusions. 

Plautus'  frequent  forgetfulness  of  his  Greek  environment  and 
the  interjection  of  Roman  references — what  De  Quincey  calls 
"anatopism" — is  another  item  of  careless  composition  too  well 
known  to  need  more  than  passing  mention.     The  repeated  appear- 

67P-  157. 

68Cf.  Daos,  p.  60. 

69Cf .  in  general  the  conclusions  of  LeGrand,  Daos,  p.  550,  and  his  admirable 
analysis  (Part  II)  of  "La  structure  des  comedies."  He  has  recognized  the 
existence  of  a  number  of  the  characteristics  treated  above,  but  his  discussion 
is  in  different  vein  and  with  a  different  object  in  view. 

63 


ance  of  the  Velabrum,70  or  Capitolium,71  or  circus,72  or  senatus,  or 
dictator73  or  centuriata  comitia,74  or  plebiscitum,75  and  a  host  of  others 
in  the  Greek  investiture,  becomes  after  a  while  a  matter  of  course 
to  us.  We  see  however  no  need  to  quarrel  with  forum;  it  was  Plau- 
tus'  natural  translation  for  ayopa.  But  it  all  adds  inevitably  and 
relentlessly  to  our  argument — Plautus  was  heedless  of  the  petty 
demands  of  technique  and  realism.  His  attention  was  too  much 
occupied  in  devising  means  of  amusement. 

The  occasional  topical  allusions  belong  in  the  same  category  as 
above;  for  example,  the  allusion  to  the  Punic  war  {Cis.  202),76  the 
lex  Platoria  {Ps.  303,  Rud.  1381-2),  Naevius'  imprisonment  {Mil. 
2 1 1-2),  Attalus  of  Pergamum  {Per.  339,  Poen.  664),  Antiochus 
the  Great  {Poen.  693-4).  Again  we  have  a  modern  parallel:  the 
topics  of  the  day  are  a  favorite  resort  of  the  lower  types  of  present- 
day  stage  production. 

"'  5.     Jokes  on  the  dramatic  machinery. 

But  the  most  extreme  stage  of  intimate  jocularity  is  reached 
when  the  last  sorry  pretense  of  drama  is  discarded  and  the  dramatic 
machinery  itself  becomes  the  subject  of  jest.  So  in  the  Cas.  1006 
the  cast  is  warned :  Hanc  ex  longa  longiorem  ne  faciamus  fabulam. 
In  Per.  159-60  Saturio  wants  to  know  where  to  get  his  daughter's 
projected  disguise: 

"SAT.     x60ev  ornamenta? 

TOX.  Abs  chorago  sumito.  Dare  debet:  praebenda  aediles 
locaverunt."     (Cf.  Trin.  858.) 

Even  the  Ps.,  heralded  as  dramatically  one  of  the  best  of  the 
plays,  yields  the  following:  Horum  caussa  haec  agitur  specta- 
torum  fabula  (720);  hanc  fabulam  dum  transigam  (562)  and  fol- 
lowing speech ;  verba  quae  in  comoediis  solent  lenoni  dici  (1081-2) ; 
quam  in  aliis  comoediis  fit  (1240);  quin  vocas  spectatores  simul? 
(1332).  In  St.  715  ff.,  the  action  of  the  play  is  interrupted  while 
the  boisterous  slaves  give  the  musician  a  drink.  From  the  Poen. 
comes  a  gem  that  will  bear  quoting  at  length  (550  ff.) : 

"°Cap.  489,  Cur.  483.  nCur.  269,  et  al. 

nMil.  991.  73Ps.  416,  et  al. 

~4Ps.  12T,2. 

7sPs.  748.     For  a  fairly  complete  collection,  v.   LeGrand,  Daos,  p.  44  ff. 
Cf.  Middleton  and  Mills,  Students'  Companion  to  Latin  Authors,  p.  20  ff. 
76Cf.  West  in  A.  J.  P.  VIII.  15.     Cf.  note  1,  Part  II,  supra. 

64 


Omnia  istaec  scimus  iam  nos,  si  hi  spectatores  sciant. 
Horunc  hie  nunc  causa  haec  agitur  spectatorum  fabula : 
Hos  te  satius  est  doCere  ut,  quando  agas,  quid  agas  sciant. 
Nos  tu  ne  curassis:   scimus  rem  omnem,  quippe  omnes  simul. 
Didicimus  tecum  una,  ut  respondere  possimus  tibi.77 

This  is  the  final  degeneration  into  the  realm  of  pure  foolery.  It 
is  a  patent  declaration:  "This  is  only  a  play;  laugh  and  we  are 
content. ' '  Once  more  we  venture  to  point  a  parallel  on  the  modern 
stage,  in  the  vaudeville  comedian  who  interlards  his  dancing  with 
comments  such  as:  "I  hate  to  do  this,  but  it's  the  only  way  I  can 
earn  a  living." 

6.     Use  of  stock  plots  and  characters. 

We  must  touch  finally,  but  very  lightly,  on  the  commonplaces  of 
stock  plots  and  characters.  The  whole  array  of  puppets  is  familiar 
to  us  all :  the  cunning  slave,  the  fond  or  licentious  papa,  the  spend- 
thrift son  and  their  inevitable  confreres  appear  in  play  after  play 
with  relentless  regularity.  The  close  correspondence  of  many 
plots  is  also  too  familiar  to  need  discussion.78  The  glimmering  of 
originality  in  the  plot  of  the  Cap.  called  for  special  advertisement.79 
In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  evidence,  the  pertinence  of  these  facts 
for  us,  we  reiterate,  is  that  Plautus  merely  adopted  the  New 
Comedy  form  as  his  comic  medium,  and,  while  leaving  his  originals 
in  the  main  untouched,  took  what  liberties  he  desired  with  them, 
with  the  single-minded  purpose  of  making  his  public  laugh.80 

77Cf.  Amph.  861  ff.,  As.  174  f.,  Cap.  778,  Cur.  464,  Mer.  160,  Poen.  1224. 

78Cf.  Daos,  Part  I,  Chap.  Ill:  Les  personnages, and  p.  303  ff.;  Mommsen. 
Hist.  pp.  141  ff. 

79Prol.,  53  ff. 

80For  a  discussion  of  the  relation  of  Plautus  to  his  originals,  v.  Schuster, 
Quomodo  Plautus  Attica  exemplaria  transtulcrit ;  LeGrand,  Daos,  passim; 
Ostermayer,  de  hist.  fab.  in  com.  PI.;  Ritschl,  Par.  271,  etc.  The  efforts  to 
distinguish  Plautus  from  his  models  have  so  far  been  fragmentary  and  abortive 
and  will  not  advance  appreciably  until  a  complete  play  that  he  adapted  has 
been  found.  At  any  rate,  the  discussion  has  no  real  bearing  on  our  subject, 
since  we  can  consider  only  the  plays  as  actually  transmitted;  their  sources 
cannot  affect  our  argument.  The  comparisons  in  Daos  seem  to  indicate  that 
Plautus  did  not  debase  his  originals  so  much  as  Mommsen,  Korting,  Schlegel 
and  others  had  thought.  Even  in  1881,  Kiessling  {Anal.  Plant.  II.  9)  boldly 
expresses  the  opinion:  "Atque  omnino  Plautus  multo  pressius  Atticorum 
exemplarium  vestigia  secutus  est  quam  hodie  vulgo  arbitrantur".  Cf.  Kellogg 
in  PAPA.  XLIV  (1913). 

65 


In  Conclusion 

In  contrast  to  these  grotesqueries  certain  individual  scenes  and 
plays  stand  out  with  startling  distinctness  as  possessed  of  wit  and 
humor  of  high  order.  The  description  by  Cleaereta  of  the  relations 
of  lover,  mistress  and  lena  is  replete  with  biting  satire  (As.  177  ff., 
215ft".).  The  finale  of  the  same  play  is  irresistibly  comic.  In  Aul. 
731  ff.  real  sparks  issue  from  the  verbal  cross-purposes  of  Euclio 
and  Lyconides  over  the  words  "pot"  and  "daughter."  The  Box. 
is  an  excellent  play,  marred  by  padding.  When  the  sisters  chaff 
the  old  men  as  "sheep"  (11 20  ft.),  the  humor  is  naturalistic  and 
human.  The  Cas.,  uproarious  and  lewd  as  it  is,  becomes  excrucia- 
tingly amusing  if  the  mind  is  open  to  appreciating  humor  in  the 
broadest  spirit.  The  discourse  of  Periplecomenus  (Mil.  637  ff.)  is 
marked  by  homely  satirical  wisdom.  In  the  Ps.  the  badinage  of 
the  name-character  is  appreciably  superior  to  most  of  the  inciden- 
tal quips.  Pseudolus  generously  compliments  Charinus  on  beating 
him  at  his  own  game  of  repartee  (743).  When  Weise  (Die  Komo- 
dien  des  Plautus,  p.  181)  describes  Ps.  IV.  7  as  "eine  der  ausge- 
zeichnetsten  Scenen,  die  es  irgend  giebt,"  his  superlative  finds  a 
better  justification  than  usual. 

When  Menaechmus  Sosicles  sees  fit  "to  put  an  antic  disposition 
on,"  we  have  a  scene  which,  while  eminently  farcical,  is  signally 
clever  and  dramatically  effective.  Witness  the  imitation  by 
Shakespeare  in  The  Comedy  of  Errors,  IV.  4,  and  in  spirit  by  modern 
farce;  for  instance,  in  A  Night  Off,  when  the  staid  old  Professor 
feels  the  recrudescence  of  his  youthful  aspirations  to  attend  a 
prize-fight,  he  simulates  madness  as  a  prelude  to  dashing  wildly 
away. 

The  following  from  Rud.  (160  ff.)  is  theatrical  but  tremendously 
effective  and  worthy  of  the  highest  type  of  drama.  Sceparnio, 
looking  off-stage,  spies  Ampelisca  and  Palaestra  tossed  about  in  a 
boat.     He  addresses  Daemones : 

"SC.  But  O  Palaemon !  Hallowed  comrade  of  Neptune  .  .  . 
what  scene  meets  my  eye  ? 

DAE .     What  do  you  see  ? 

SC.  I  see  two  poor  lone  women  sitting  in  a  bit  of  a  boat.  How 
the  poor  creatures  are  being  tossed  about!  Hoorah!  Hoorah! 
Fine !  The  waves  are  whirling  their  boat  past  the  rocks  into  the 
shallows.  A  pilot  couldn't  have  steered  straighter.  I  swear  I 
never  saw  waves  more  high.     They're  safe  if  they  escape  those 

66 


breakers.  Now,  now,  danger!  One  is  overboard !  Ah,  the  water's 
not  deep:  she'll  swim  out  in  a  minute.  Hooray!  See  the  other 
one,  how  the  wave  tossed  her  out!  She  is  up,  she's  on  her  way 
shoreward ;  she's  safe !" 

Sceparnio  clasps  his  hands,  jumps  up  and  down,  grasps  the 
shaking  Daemones  convulsively  and  communicates  his  excitement 
to  the  audience.  It  is  a  piece  of  thrilling  theatrical  declamation 
and  must  have  wrought  the  spectators  up  to  a  high  pitch.  In 
general,  the  Rud.  is  a  superior  play. 

In  Cas.  229  ff.  there  is  developed  a  piece  of  faithful  and  entertain- 
ing character-drawing,  as  the  old  roue  Lysidamus  fawns  upon  his 
militant  spouse  Cleostrata,  with  the  following  as  its  climax : 

"CLE.     (Sniffling.)     Ha!  Whence  that  odor  of  perfumes,  eh? 

LYS.     The  jig's  up." 

In  the  whole  panorama  of  Plautine  personae  the  portrayal  of 
Alcmena  in  the  Amph.  is  unique,  for  she  is  drawn  with  absolute 
sincerity  and  speaks  nothing  out  of  character.  Certainly  no 
parody  can  be  made  out  of  the  nobly  spoken  lines  633-52,  which 
lend  a  genuine  air  of  tragedy  to  the  professed  tragi(co)comoedia 
(59,  63) ;  unless  we  think  of  the  lady's  unwitting  compromising  con- 
dition (surely  too  subtle  a  thought  for  the  original  audience) .  Note 
also  the  exalted  tone  of  831-4,  839-42.  But  all  through  this 
scene  Sosia  is  prancing  around,  prating  nonsense,  and  playing  the 
buffoon,  so  that  perchance  even  here  the  nobility  becomes  but  a 
foil  for  the  revelry.  And  in  882-955  his  royal  godship  Jove  clowns 
it  to  the  lady's  truly  minted  sentiments. 

No,  we  are  far  from  attempting  to  deny  to  Plautus  all  dramatic 
technique,  skill  in  character  painting  and  cleverness  of  situation, 
but  he  was  never  hide-bound  by  any  technical  considerations.  He 
felt  free  to  break  through  the  formal  bonds  of  his  selected  medium 
at  will.  He  had  wit,  esprit  and  above  all  a  knowledge  of  his 
audience;  and  of  human  nature  generally,  or  else  he  could  not 
have  had  such  a  trenchant  effect  on  the  literature  of  all  time. 

At  any  rate,  the  above  lonely  landmarks  cannot  affect  our 
comprehensive  estimate  of  the  mise-en-scene.  Enough  has  been 
said,  we  believe,  in  our  discussion  of  the  criticism  and  acting  and 
in  our  analysis  of  his  dramatic  values,  to  show  that  the  aberrations 
of  Plautus'  commentators  have  been  due  to  their  failure  to  reach 
the  crucial  point :  the  absolute  license  with  which  his  plays  were 
acted  and  intended  to  be  acted  is  at  once  the  explanation  of  their 

67 


absurdities  and  deficiencies.     This  was  true  in  a  far  less  degree  of 
(Terence,   who  dealt  in  plots  more  stataria  and  less  motoria.sl 
1  Though  using  the  same  store  of  models,  he  endeavored  to  produce 
!  an  artistically  constructed  play,  which  should  make  some  honest 
effort  to  "hold  the  mirror  up  to  nature. "SJ  We  are  convinced  that 
even  his  extensive  use  of  contaminatio  was  designed  to  evolve  a 
better   plot.     The   extravagance   of   Plautus   is   toned   down   in 
Terence  to  a  reasonable  verisimilitude  and  a  far  more  "gentle- 
manly" mode  of  fun-making  that  was  appropriate  to  one  in  the 
confidence  of  the  aristocratic  Scipionic  circle.     But  when  all  is  said 
and  done,  Terence  lacks  the  vivid  primeval  "Volkswitz"  of  Plautus. 
We  dare  only  skirt  the  edges  of  this  extensive  subject.82 

Above  all,  our  noble  jester  succeeds  in  his  mission  of  laugh- 
producing.     But  his  methods  are  not  possessed  in  the  main  of 
dramatic  respectability.    And  it  must  be  apparent  that  our  analysis 
and  citations  have  covered  the  bulk  of  the  plays. 
We  conclude  then  that  the  prevalence  of  inherent  defects  of  com- 
l    position  and  the  lack  of  serious  motive,  coupled  with  the  author's 
I   constant  and  conscious  employment  of  the  implements  of  broad 
1  farce  and  extravagant  burlesque,  impel  us  inevitably  to  the  con- 
clusion that  we  have  before  us  a  species  of  composition  which, 
\  while  following  a  dramatic  form,  is  no/ inherently  drama,  but  a 
Variety  of  entertainment  that  may  be  described  as  a  compound  of 
aomedy,   farce  and  burlesque;  while  the  accompanying  music, 
-yhich   would  lend  dignity  to  tragedy  or  grand  opera,   merely 
lightens  the  humorous  effect  and  lends  the  color  of  musical  comedy 
opera  bouffe.8?    Korting  is  right  in  calling  it  mere  entertain- 
lent,  Mommsen  is  right  in  calling  it  caricature,  but  we  maintain 
lat  it  is  professedly  mere  entertainment,  that  it  is  consciously 
caricature  and  if  it  fulfills  these  functions  we  have  no  right  to 
criticise  it  on  other  grounds.     If  we  attempt  a  serious  critique  of 
it  as  drama,  we  have  at  once  on  our  hands  a  capricious  mass  of 
dramatic  unrealities  and  absurdities:     bombast,  burlesque,  extra- 
vagance,   horse-play,    soliloquies,    asides,    direct   address   of   the 

81Euanthius,  de  Com.  IV.  4. 

82For  an  interesting  comparison  of  Plautus  and  Terence,  v.  Spengel,  JJber 
die  lateinische  Komodie,  (Munich  1878). 

&3The  importance  of  the  music  is  indicated  by  the  transmission  of  the 
composer's  name  in  all  extant  didascaliae,  esp.  those  of  Terence.  V.  Klotz, 
Altrom.  Met.  p.  384  ff. 

68 


j 


audience,  pointless  quips,  and  so  on.  The  minute  we  accept  it  as  a 
consciously  conceived  medium  for  amusement  only,  we  have  a 
highly  effective  theatrical  mechanism  for  the  unlimited  production 
of  laughter.  And,  in  fact,  every  shred  of  evidence,  however  scant, 
goes  to  show  that  the  histrionism  must  have  been  conceived  in  a 
spirit  of  extreme  liveliness,  abandon  and  extravagance  in  gesture 
and  declamation,  that  would  not  confine  the  actor  to  faithful  por- 
trayal in  character,  but  would  allow  him  scope  and  license  to  resort 
to  any  means  whatsoever  to  bestir  laughter  amongst  a  not  over- 
stolid  audience. 


69 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  7--  tjA.c-p  ^ 

HOME  USE 

CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

MAIN  LIBRARY 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 
1 -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 
6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  Circulation  Desk. 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior 

to  due  date. 

ALL  BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO  RECALL  7  DAYS 

AFTER  DATE  CHECKED  OUT. 


MU124  1974  *9 


JH9CD  CIRC  VWl       AUG  2  . 


MAY 


«a.  c/r. 


■**** 


■8*0*      SEP 


876 


HEF&- 


SEP  1* 


MAY  27  1084 


LD21-A30m-7,'73 
(R2275S10)476 — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


<IDS2flEi47El 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


